Jeffrey Lord Responds to Theodore Olson

The American Spectator has published a response to anti-Proposition 8 lawyer Theodore Olson by Jeffrey Lord on the topic of neutering marriage. This is to counter the "conservative case" for marriage neutering.

The fact that Olson seeks to impose the values of a handful of elite lawyers and judges on the people of California when they have made their views not only plain but constitutionally plain under the law is what concerns.

Conservatives tend to believe in either 1) limited government, which would preclude a federal court overturning a state constitutional amendment adopted by direct vote of the people; 2) or in the government actively maintaining ("conserving") certain traditions, which would certainly include the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing; 3) or in the government encouraging traditional morality, which would preclude sanctioning same-sex sodomy as marital behavior, along with a general encouragement of the ideal that sex is for marriage.

The harm done to heterosexual marriage is obvious. The drive to legalize gay marriage will over time open the door to legalizing any marriage relationship, with the law unable to close the Pandora's box that Olson is trying to pry open. Gay marriage is the opening wedge in a campaign to remove monogamy and heterosexual marriage from its sacred and unique place in society. Once done, it will become, precisely because of the legal views of Mr. Olson and others, just one of a slew of relationship arrangements that all manner of judicial activist judges, emulating Chief Justice Taney, will seek to approve.

Counterfeits devalue the authentic. How does it hurt a UCLA grad if I also have a UCLA degree, even though I've never done UCLA coursework? Shouldn't everyone who wants a UCLA degree be handed one, even if they are turned off by college coursework? It is a state university, and surely the state can't "discriminate"! In reality, a neutered marriage license is identity theft.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, like Proposition 8, came into being by a vote of the American people. Olson seems not to sense the irony of claiming validity for the 14th Amendment -- ratified in the fashion required by Article 5, just as Proposition 8 was passed and ratified in the manner required by California law. Both the 14th Amendment, to which Olson clings, and Proposition 8 are the law of the United States and California respectively not because they were imposed by an activist judge who shared Olson's sentiments. They are the law because they express, in constitutional fashion, the consent of the governed.

It is a great read. Click through and read the whole thing. Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, must stand. There are conservatives, progressives, and libertarians who agree.