Skip to comments.Gay Marraige and the Consitution(BARF ALERT)Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn CA's Prop 8
Posted on 07/20/2009 4:50:34 PM PDT by TheBigIf
Gay Marraige and the Consitution (BARF ALERT) Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8.
By DAVID BOIES When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Boies and Olson are basing their argument on the equal protection clause of the Constitution which is ironic in the sense that if they would succeed they would in effect being denying all citizens equal representation under the law on this issue of sexuality. If they were to succeed then they would be setting precedent for future types of behavior to be considered under the equal protection clause as well.
Boies starts out his argument with faulty logic by making a comparison between inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage as if a persons race is the equivalent of their sexual behavior. Of course these two are not equivalents at all. While medical science (and historical records) could easily identify the race of a newborn child there is no doctor or medical scientist who can pronounce the arrival of a homosexual newborn child or predict the future sexual behavior of a newborn. Boies comparison is based completely upon his personal opinion and is an example of faulty logic.
Boies then goes on to speak of Supreme Court precedent in regards to marriage and instantly projects that precedent to be a basis for same-sex marriage rights. Yet he does not mention anyother type of marriage other then same-sex marriage.
If marriage is a Constitutional right as Boies claims it is ( I know I do not see that written in my copy of the U.S. Constitution) then what about polygamy? Or what about the age of consent? Why should the people be allowed to tell other families anything at all about how they view marriage or even the raising of children in regards to this issue? If marriage is a Constitutional right then why if a 12 yr old child is consenting to marriage and their parents also agree should the majority be allowed to make laws against it?
It seems that both Boies and Olson think that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and he even claims sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. This is I guess his and Ted Olsons belief but that is still all it is a belief and is not fact and that is where the most faulty part of his logic lies.
Boies seems to accept that the Supreme Court can and did remove our right to representation on issues of consensual sexual behavior in the Lawrence v. Texas case of 2003. He does not at all address the fact that the Constitution does not define right and wrong in regards to sexuality (the judges made it up) and simply accepts that it is judges who should define this and not We the People. So in essence he is making the case to further deny the people the right to representation on issues of sexuality.
Boises goes on to claim homosexuality to be harmless and makes the insinuation that the only way someone could oppose gay marriage is for religious reasons. This is another bit of extreme faulty logic. I am not religious at all but I oppose having my right to representation taken away on any issues of sexuality being that it is my right to have representation on these issues.
If I am walking down the street with my family and while passing someones home we see them having sex in the front lawn, how would that harm us? It would only be our morality and beliefs that may cause us to oppose such acts and not anything that they are doing. It is the same thing with same-sex marriage, it may not directly harm my family but it will harm the moral fabric of our society for sure. Yet if you listen to the argument made by Boies you or I should not have any representation on the issue at all.
David Boies and Ted Olson are pathetic. They should be shunned by conservatives. They do not understand anything about freedom or the Consitution.
Please take shelter in the nearest bathroom.
It was an offense to nature and nature's God then, and regardless of what progressives or fuzzy thinkers say today, it is the same offense today.
These people need psychological and mental help...not reinforcement of abhorant behavior.
...and on the lighter side, take your mind off the Obamanation for a few minutes and enjoy some beautiful Western US scenery slideshows.
Well, Teddy boy, your lovely wife must be turning over in her grave. You sir, are a disgrace, But it’s not all bad, you are a role model to ambulance chasers the world over.
Your rebuttal is well thought out.
Maybe these two are sweet on each other.
The Rump Ranger Constitution Recovery Act
I believe he’s referring to Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution, not “Proposition 8”.
There is no inequality here.
This is not an equal protection issue (and would never, ever be considered a due process issue but for the insanity of “substantive due process”). If it were, polygamists would have just as much of a case. As would people who want to marry a dog. Just to remind everyone, gays are equal to people of other sexual orientations when it comes to marrying members of their own sex.
The simple truth is, unless they do so by discriminating on the basis of clearly defined no-no’s like race and religion, governments can decide what constitutes being married. The reason it’s wrong to deny marriage to a black man and a white woman as opposed to a gay man and a gay man is plain for all to see. The interracial couple are asking for what other groups are allowed to do, i.e. to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay men are asking for what no one of any group is allowed to do, i.e. to marry a member of the opposite sex.
I don’t care if both kinds of “marriage” involve love and intercourse. They are not the same thing.
My opinion of Ted Olson certainly dropped several pegs.
Boies, not so much; my opinion of that shyster weasel couldn’t go any lower. I’ve been disgusted with that one since the Microsoft lawsuit days, and especially since his role in the “Sore Loserman” election debacle of 2000.
Welcome to our brave new world, where flamboyant sexuality is a glorious statement of identity, while religious beliefs are shameful and to be kept private.
I agree with you. As I see it, we’re talking about the definition of words here. And the union between a man and a woman is called “Marriage”. I can’t get the Supreme Court to define blue as red, and they shouldn’t be able to get the court to define marriage any other way.
If the gay community wants to invent a new word to describe a union between two men or two women, they’re welcome to it.
“If the gay community wants to invent a new word to describe a union between two men or two women, theyre welcome to it.”
Why should the gay community be allowed to define anything under the law if the majority does not agree with it?
Makes me wonder about Ted.
This is not just about the definition of a word. This is about who has the power to decide righ and wrong in regards to sexuality. Is it the Courts or “We the People”?
One of these days I need to grow a pair (so to speak, of course) and put that statement on a bumper sticker. That is PRECISELY the argument we need to be making again and again and again. We can’t let gay activists continue misleading the argument and luring in the gullible by falsely framing gay “marriage” as a matter of “equal rights.” The push for gay “rights”—rights that no individual currently has, regardless of sexual orientation—is a matter of forcing people to accept and validate a deviant lifestyle as normal—nothing more and nothing less.
Some FReepers will hate me for saying so, but we get ourselves absolutely nowhere by quoting Scripture to people who would use Scripture to wipe their butts.
The people of California have spoken.
Did I read somewhere that Olson’s new wife is a liberal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.