Comments for The Odd Couple: Dick Cheney and Ted Olson at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sat, 25 May 2013 02:04:51 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2208 Thank you for this commentary. It well defines both the legal dilemna, and the likely impact of Ted Olson's involvement on the wrong side of this moral/legal issue. What will soon be more evident is the seriously compromised position of much of the church of Jesus Christ - Dave Brandt Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:58:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2127 I too dissent from the view that same-sex marriage (SSM) is libertarian. Marriage as it is reasonably and historically defined does not impinge on anyone's conduct. SSM takes what are now relationships outside the purview of government authority and interference and demands the state's regulation and involvement. SSM further seeks approval of personal conduct through legislation, along with the state's enforcement of such approval. Such demands are not libertarian. - John Fouad Hanna Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:23:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2108 Linda Wolpert Smith. come visit us at the Ruth Institute, www.ruthinstitute.org. we work on this very question all the time. True, many are not persuaded, but good arguments do exist. Be not afraid! - Jennifer Morse Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:04:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2100 W.W., freedom is a wonderful thing. Just because some people have defined it wrongly does not mean that those who have spoken in favor of it are in the wrong. You might as well say that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln paved the way for same-sex "marriage." And it would be unwise to make that concession so quickly and willingly. - Jonathan Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:00:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2099 Would Prof. Arkes consider a tutorial for non-philosophers who must confront those who in all good faith believe that freedom requires that two men or two women may marry? I have tried the argument from common sense; also from that of public health concerns regarding both heterosexual promiscuity and homosexual practices. These have been rejected. - Linda Wolpert Smith Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:59:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2098 I must respecfully disagree with Prof. Arkes' characterization of support of same-sex marriage as "libertarian." It is only so if one has decided that marriage is a civil right, which I would assert it is not. Marriage is pre-political. Marriage is a privilege. The confusion arises from the actions of government to inaptly conflate civil benefits (tax laws, etc.) with marital status. Remove the conflation and the argument in favor of same-sex marriage evaporates. - Keith Toepfer Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:40:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2095 To be frank, the ground was prepared for this course of events just as much by Bush's relentless emphasis on "freedom" as the preeminent American value, as it was by anything the Democratic party has done. Somewhat suprisingly, therefore, it would not be out of the question to suggest that, at least in some ways, the Republican Party is just as radically modern as the Democratic Party. - W.W. Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:32:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/the-odd-couple-dick-cheney-and-ted-olson.html#comment-2092 My! What next? I am sure both of these men have their reasons for raising same sex unions to the dignity of marriage. These unions once relegated to the category of sodomy are now in these times to be held sacred? Same sex unions of some sort have existed since the beginning of time, but never was procreation, one of the clear reasons for marriage, ever possible in a same sex union. So what is the reason for disagreement with these two fine men? The Creator, no longer a part of jurisprudence. - Willie Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:56 +0100