Skip to comments.Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage
Posted on 05/27/2009 12:30:07 AM PDT by BCrago66
Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Is ole Ted ‘coming out of the closet’?
Wonder what Barbara Olson would say about this if she were still alive?
Soros seems to get around.
And as I remember, Olson’s name was floated as a possibility for a seat on the SCOTUS and he would have had great support among American conservatives.
I remember that too. The ironic thing is that is was likely pressure from the Left - who were angry about Bush v. Gore - that prevented Olson from getting nominated to the Supreme Court.
As the tally stands now, I’d say an Equal Protection challenge for gay marriage would likely win in the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy - a guy that very much likes to be liked - casting the 5th vote.
Ted Olson has sold out... or come out.
... whored out, is more like it.
... whored out, is more like it.
Is it possible that Olson just honestly got it wrong - and that he isn’t personally gay, or on the take?
I believe you are correct. '
Considering his wife died at the Pentagon on 9/11, I'd say you're all class.
I wonder to what extent a Roe v. Wade-style decision for “gay marriage” could be imposed. Would the 30+ states that have specifically come out against it in the last decade simply roll over and be bullied by the SCOTUS? Or would it be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back and sparks some sort of revolution against judicial tyranny?
They have no case, this is a CA constitutional amendment and the US constitution defines marriage as one man and one woman. This will go nowhere, they are just making noise. The feds have no jurisdiction on this case at all.
If same sex marriage becomes an actual "right" then plural marriage is sure to follow.
Where in the Constitution is marriage defined?
It would cause a political earthquake arguably equal to or greater than Roe, in part because the reaction against the decision would be joined by constituencies who aren’t typically skeptical of the judiciary. Just one example: African Americans, who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. So this would not be just a traditional conservative v. liberal political fight.
I don’t know for sure, but she was very solid on the issues. I can’t imagine her being pleased by this.
Barbara was one of my favorite talk show personalities before her death. She was quick, well informed, and didn’t give the lefties an inch.
We lost a good one there. I still miss her a lot.
The Court seldom turns down a chance to extend rights by citing the Equal Protection Clause.
Even liberals like Alan Dershowitz have now conceded that the Court did overreach in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. Even Dershowitz admits that the Court should have left it up to the individual States to determine how they would resolve the issue of abortion.
We don't need another great wedge issue dividing this country for decades. Just because of five numbskulls in black robes refused to take the wisest course of action.
I do not disagree with you however, my point was not that the Court should rule to legalize gay marriage but that it likely will vote to legalize gay marriage when given a chance.
Considering what his wife believed, he’s not honoring her death.
It’s sad this has happened.
That’s not on point. Legally, marriage in America is not inherently a religious institution. A couple atheists can - in all 50 States - get married by a state official, no ceremony and no sanction from any clergy required.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Har! Who would have thought Ted Olson would end up sharing a hot tub with David Boies? Barbara must be spinning in her grave. And I bet Arianna Huffington is having a good chuckle.
Wrong... Monogamy is a religious institution.
Directly from Reynolds...
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Sorry, but even for a guy as self absorbed as Kennedy, going against the voters and the State Supreme Court would be a bridge too far.
OK, no objection. To be honest I just skimmed your earlier post, and misinterpreted it.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right.
"When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another."
(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)
OK at this point I’m still not sure what you’re talking about. In terms of moral theory and history, you can argue that marriage is a religious institution and right. Legally, the right to marry, and the incidents of marriage - as practiced and actually enforced by the States - is not essentially religious. On the federal level, there is Supreme Court precedent from early in the last century dealing with a fundamental right to marry, and that right is not defined as essentially religious.
None of the above means there’s a federal constitutional right to gay marriage (or says that there’s isn’t one, for that matter.) That particular fight centers on the proper interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (and the Due Process Clause).
And now I go to sleep.
Ok mr Olsen, when homosexual coitus can produce babies then homosexual unions meet the basic qualification for marriage.
Monogamy is an artificial religious standard.
Since we now have a "woman's right to choose" because of Roe v. Wade, why not polygyny or polyandry?
ANSWER: Monogamy is a religious standard.
"What's he that was not born of woman?"
(Macbeth, act V, scene VII)
However, it clashes with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas that holds a state has no compelling interest to regulate such activity.
I suppose a case could be made that there is a compelling interest to forbid polygamy under the assumption that up to 15% of the male population would not marry leading to severe social problems.
Oi vay....doesn't anybody understand logic and reason anymore. Race, like religion, class, etc., are restrictions on the principle, or premise, of marriage. Unreasonable restrictions as they are (and therefore, discriminatory) they don't violate the premise of one man (or one male) and one woman (or one female)
Same sex marriage is not a restriction, it is a redefinition of the principle itself and creates an entirely new premise.
The two are not logically analogous.
Roe v. Wade...
Society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices.
Doesn't a woman have the "right to choose" several husbands???
No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. The only way they can win this argument is to redefine marriage, which 75% of the populace will not allow.
There’s always been one thing I never liked about Ted Olson...He’s a Lawyer.
Olson is an attorney. I never did think he was a real conservative icon. That said, Barry Richards(I think that was the guy that argued at the SCOTUS for Bush against Algore), was a democrat, but he took the case.
The attorney for El Rushbo was most likely a lib, but he took the case.
if you get my drift.......
Are there no Republican men of principal? I know he is a lawyer but he is not obligated to take this case. I doubt he needs the money. When is the last time a RAT crossed the line to help a Repub cause?
It’s all about the money!!!! Old Ted would probably sell his soul if the price was right?
Lawyering is a business, a lawyer doesn’t have to believe in his clients mindset or agenda.
There are lawyers who KNOW their client is guilty of the criminal charges against them but they’ll work their butt’s off him or her for the paycheck.
I think this will be bigger than Roe because adults do not want their children endangered by homosexuals.
The key to this debate is to get people to question the news media, or more correctly realise the news media IS THE ENEMY.
A lawyer is taught, or at least was taught, that you don’t take cases where you have a moral objection. This is not a criminal case where guilt must be proven and there is a process of defense and conviction.
This is a civil matter.
What convervative groups does Olson belong to? Those groups need to be targetted with protests and denied money.
Sadly, Ted Olson needs to become poison to those organizations.