Theodore B. Olson’s office is a testament to his iconic status in the conservative legal movement. A framed photograph of Ronald Reagan, the first of two Republican presidents Mr. Olson served, is warmly inscribed with “heartfelt thanks.” Fifty-five white quills commemorate each of his appearances before the Supreme Court, where he most famously argued the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. On the bookshelf sits a Defense Department medal honoring his legal defense of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism policies after Sept. 11.
But in a war room down the hall, where Mr. Olson is preparing for what he believes could be the most important case of his career, the binders stuffed with briefs, case law and notes offer a different take on a man many liberals love to hate. They are filled with arguments Mr. Olson hopes will lead to a Supreme Court decision with the potential to reshape the legal and social landscape along the lines of cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade: the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.
Given the traditional battle lines on the issue, Mr. Olson’s decision to file a lawsuit challenging California’s recent ban on same-sex marriage has stirred up stereotype-rattled suspicion on both sides.
“For conservatives who don’t like what I’m doing, it’s, ”˜If he just had someone in his family we’d forgive him,’ ” Mr. Olson said. “For liberals it’s such a freakish thing that it’s, ”˜He must have someone in his family, otherwise a conservative couldn’t possibly have these views.’ It’s frustrating that people won’t take it on face value.”
Well, he may not be a Christian. There really isn’t all that much correlation between political and religious conservatism. Some of the finest orthodox Christians I know are lefties politically. I know at least one quasi-John Bircher who is a vehement reappraiser.
And of course, if marriage is a right, how can it be limited to 2? If sex is irrelevant then then number of people in the relationship are irrelevant. Indeed on what basis do people living together not get marriage privileges? Why should a couple or triple or whatever get more benefits than singles?
It makes more sense to simply do away with marriage. The government treats all people as single and allows them to enter into what ever contractual arrangements they want to.
Mr. Olson, a divorced man, is now approving what he himself has practiced – the destruction of the institution of marriage. I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
How are we to reach any conclusions about Mr. Olson’s Christianity? His legal position relates solely to governmental, secular marriage, a very different issue than sacramental marriage. If he prevails, it will have no impact on denominations that believe it scripturally required that religious marriage be limited to one man/one woman, a view that I would be very surprised if Mr. Olson disagreed with.
There are reasonable arguments to be made for secular approval and disapproval of SSM. One can view it as a function of civil rights – rights to inherit, rights to sign in emergencies, etc. Alternatively, one can view it as a function of the interests of the State. The State grants civil marriage in order to assure it’s future with procreation and the raising, educating, feeding, clothing, sheltering, etc. of children – therefore special legal status and tax status is given.
However, I agree with the postings above which state secular approval of SSM doesn’t weigh much toward spiritual approval of SSM, as the entities (secular marriage and spiritual marriage) are linked only by form, not by substance.
There can no longer be anything called secular marriage. There can be only civil partnerships and marriage properly so called. For the zillionth times, the interference by a state in a spiritual matter is forbidden by the Constitution. Is there any doubt that marriage is not a business affair, but a spiritual affair? How can it be otherwise? If spiritual, then….
The state has an interest in staying OUT of the marriage relationship.
Larry
There is “no” reasonable argument to be made for secular approval of SSM. To argue for SSM is to abandon Reason. Marriage is the two in one flesh union of a man and a woman. We don’t make this stuff up; it’s called reality.
#7 – how about people should have the freedom to choose their partner, rather than big government?
There are good reasons, however, to keep the contract to a dyad.
NO. 7, the issue is not “approval” of same sex marriage. The linked article is about a constitutional challenge to a system in which the state (or more accurately, individual states) bestow legal status on male-female state-conducted marriages, but deny that status to same sex marriages. The issue will not be put forward in the context of “approval”, that term being more applicable to a moral or ethical consideration. The issue will be whether the Constitution permits a differentiation in the grant of a particular legal status on the basis of the genders of the participants. The secular, legal and constitutional logic of the situation, in my opinion, leads in a direction where, as no. 6 suggests, the state will exit the marriage business and confine itself to civil unions, and where marriage will become the exclusive province of religious institutions.
#8: “There are good reasons, however, to keep the contract to a dyad.”
What are those reasons? And if reasons coming from judgment about public policy are acceptable for determining that a marriage should be only two, why are public policy reasons for those two being one male and one female out of bounds?
#3, I don’t think Mr. Olson is a divorced man. His first wife was killed on 9/11. She was on the airplane that went down in PA. I can’t remember her professional name, but she was a very attractive blonde lady who was a conservative columnist and commentator on TV and radio, often on FoxNews. She called him to say goodby before the plane went down. He was Solicitor General at the time.
Small quibble, #11…Barbara Olson was on American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
FWIW, wikipedia says Barbara Olson was his [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#Personal_life]3rd wife[/url].
John – any reasonable legal argument for keeping the dyad is nixed by serial monogamy.
As to the article – it’s about time America was forced to confront her very odd Church-state relationship with marriage. It cannot be constitutional.