The anti-marriage amendment litigator, Ted Olson, said the following in his Newsweek opinion piece:
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."
Due process and equal protection kick-in with the application of the law. The marriage law does not entail a gay criterion for ineligiblity nor a straight criterion for eligibility. Contrary to Olson, the law does not apply a gay-straight dichotomy.
The marriage amendment operates to affirm that society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage; the individual is treated equally.
The CA marriage amendment recognizes what the government has not created and does not own. It reaffirms the opposite-sexed basis of marriage that has stood for millennia.
Olson's view is that the 14th Amendment prohibits such an amendment.
Olson asks:
What better way to make this national aspiration [equality before the law] complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation?
Individuals may differ in the way that Olson says, but at issue is the type of relationship. Olson makes a plea for protections based on sexual orientation because he assumes that protections are denied on that basis.
Olson has given no good reason to treat his favored subset of nonmarriage differently from the rest of nonmarriage. He blatantly favors unequal treatment of individuals in nonmarital arrangements on the very basis he says the 14th demands neutrality. He argues for favoritism, not for equal treatment.
More to come.
* * *
Previously:
Answering Olson's pro-SSM argument.
Answering Olson: No state right to SSM.
Return to "Answering Ted Olson: Updates."
It is to be hoped that when the outcome is appealed to a higher court, that those who sit in judgement have a better grasp on logic. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteYours Sincereley.
ReplyDeleteTypically here at Opine, when one assults the "logic" of a poster, one is expected to demonstrate HOW that logic is inadequate.
It is to be hoped that when the outcome of Perry v Shwarzenager is appealed to a higher court, that those who sit in judgement have the ability to do so.
Fitz, thanks for the tip. I'll remember that for next time. I believe they value proper spelling here at Opine, as well.
ReplyDelete"Sincerely" = 2 e's (not 3). Did I demonstrate that clearly enough for ya?
PS--my comment was not a judgement against Chairm, whom I hold in the highest regard, but rather directed at Mr. Olson. No, Chairm is my hero.
Peace, brother.