Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Theodore B. Olson is half the legal team suing to overturn Prop 8 in Federal District Court right now in California. He is, in his own words from the article linked to below, "politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations."

He wrote this article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," for Newsweek. It may be one of the most thoughtful and eloquent explanations for why gay marriage has to be legal in America, especially coming from a conservative.

So, here it is:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1


I present the article and now bow out because I'm done arguing politics with wargamers...but being a political activist in this field requires me to share this on the various forums of which I am an active member and these sorts of discussions are allowed.

So, have fun kids, and don't hurt each other.

So you're not actually commenting any more, just posting because its your business? Er, ok.

Good read especially considering the source. I think even this guy would agree to all that since he has a lesbian daughter IIRC so he knows first hand about the hate against 'em:



Just a shame that politicians, both red and blue (but especially the elephants in this case), haven't done more to uphold the principles of equality. I agree that there really isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage.

It seems to be a matter of the interpretation of the word "marriage".

Religious people take it as a kind of sacrament, which is profaned by its use in cases which are against their religion.

Secular minded people often see it as a term for a particular legal status.

Frazzled wrote:So you're not actually commenting any more, just posting because its your business? Er, ok.

He learned from the best.

I have no financial interest here. I have no vested interest in the issue itself. Its California, let the Californians take care of it.

Does business not have the same dual meaning on your side of the pond? Is Cairnius a volunteer or is he paid staff?

If he's being paid to put posts here then that's a different matter, IMO that makes this thread spam and worthy only of a good death.

Well it raises the question doesn't it?
Having said that, doesn't really matter, just that last sentence in the initial post threw me.

Cairnius wrote:
I present the article and now bow out because I'm done arguing politics with wargamers...but being a political activist in this field requires me to share this on the various forums of which I am an active member and these sorts of discussions are allowed.

Not quite sure how anything you may or may not be or do 'requires' you to post this on what is primarily a wargaming forum that happens to dedicate a small portion of its space to 'off topic' issues...

So, huh?

Well, let me make a suggestion. Its a relevant topic 9or as relevant as any of the non-choclate related nonsense I post) so lets leave it for discussion. Alphy we can take private if need to.

Can anyone explain to me why the government needs to be involved in marriage in the first place?

Marriage tax. Gman need da green baby.

I present the article and now bow out because I'm done arguing politics with wargamers.

And I hope you enjoy your echo chamber of people that agree with you and which you hold authority over anyway. If you can't keep up with some neckbearded wargamers then I certainly hope you never try your hand at anything politically serious, because given how it's gone previous you will likely get flustered and run away after being shown wrong.

O snap! (sorry that shot was kind of called for)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:Can anyone explain to me why the government needs to be involved in marriage in the first place?

Welcome to the world of Libertarians. Room for one more.

Tyyr wrote:Can anyone explain to me why the government needs to be involved in marriage in the first place?

Legal rights of married people; especially as pertaining to collective assets, and inheritance in the absence of the last will and testament. Also, simple things like visitation rights in hospitals. You could probably just strip those protections down to issues of cohabitation, and joint contracts (which both exist anyway), but that doesn't do anything significant from a legal standpoint. Either way the government will be involved in all the materially significant issues that pertain to marriage.