Even though we have not one ounce of biological evidence as to the origin of what creates homosexual feelings, desires, inclinations, and temptations, Olson et al are adopting the mantra that people who engage in that behavior are in some way forced by nature to do so. Even if the argument compels science to argue that homosexuals are "born that way," advising such behavior is not necessarily healthy. Newborns with fetal alcohol syndrome are not expected to take to beer instead of milk. And as many recent studies have shown in female sexuality, the number of girls that remain fluid after experimentation with homosexual behavior is so widespread and varied in its outcome it would be impossible to assert that something in their genetic code forced them to engage. (Ironically in those same studies, the vast majority of women studied ended up in stable male-female marital relationships as their long term desire.)
Based on the vast amount of inaccurate presumption on the part of Olson and his legal team, they've come to some very faulty arguments, and are being made tools for the lobby that seeks to overthrow the traditional family unit.
Olson already KNOWS that no homosexual is discriminated against in the application of male-female marriage laws.
There is nothing in any of those laws that discriminates in any way against the person engaged in homosexual behavior.
Marriage is a binding legal relationship between a man and a woman. Since that's what marriage IS, if a homosexual wished to enter into such a union, all they would need is to find the suitable party to enter into it with.
Never not once, not ever in this nation, has a person been denied a marriage certificate at city hall based on who they had slept with the night before.
It is not now, Margaret Hoover, nor has it ever been an issue of civil rights being denied. Because quite simply they aren't.
Binding legal relationships between people of the same sex already exist in nearly every state in the union. Rights like hospital visitation, inheritance, financial planning, even severance upon the ending of the relationship can already be contracted by any two people, a piece of paper, and a notary.
Olson, Hoover, and others who support them are not, as they would argue, simply trying to "extend equal rights." That is a total canard.
They are being used by radical homosexual activists to REDEFINE an institution that is the core of our society--the traditional family unit.
Arguing otherwise is a flat-out lie.