Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage

Reader Comments

May 26, 2009

I applaud Olson for having the guts to stand up for the rights of others. I hope he isn't the last high-profile conservative to take a stand that may not necessarily be popular with his own side. Still, it would be best to see this issue not resolved by the courts.

May 26, 2009

Homosexual men can marry....women. Homosexual women can marry....men. How are they not equal to heterosexuals? If the people, as expressed by vote or legislature, decide to change the legal definition of marriage, then that is like other legal definitions. When a court changes definitions in violation of 3000 years of jurisprudence, that is tyranny, and the government will have chosen to devolve its legitimacy.

May 26, 2009

Shouldn't Olson expect this to require the Supreme Court to elevate sexual orientation to a "suspect class" for equal protection purposes, something that's never been done and would affect a huge swath of equal protection jurisprudence going forward? Alas, I think Barbara would have talked him out of this one.

May 26, 2009

Ted Olson, RINO. If he were simply zealously representing his client, that would be one thing and much better than this: 'I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."' So Ted, former "personal" representative of the odious RIAA/MPAA in the anti-Betamax case, has revealed himself not to be much of a Conservative. It's time we admit his unreliability.

May 26, 2009

Let the legislatures make the laws; like Iowa and Vermont. Get the courts the hell out of this game.

May 26, 2009

OK, I'm never a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but why doesn't Olsen's logic apply to the 20 wives thing again?

May 27, 2009

He said: "Homosexual men can marry....women. Homosexual women can marry....men. How are they not equal to heterosexuals?" - - - - - - "Black schoolchildren can attend high-quality black schools. White children can attend high-quality white schools. How is this unequal?" I got married to a person with whom I share an emotional, financial, educational, sexual, recreational, philosophical, and aspirational bond. The sexual part is what left me aimed at someone of the opposite sex, but were I instead attracted to guys, and found someone who matched my needs and desires in all of those other areas equally to what I have now plus made me crave him sexually, what I end up with isn't a completely different thing, but a very similar thing that differs in only one of the many critical areas. (Seriously, if we have to get married, they should have to get married, too. It's only fair.)

May 27, 2009

Mister Meaker says, "When a court changes definitions in violation of 3000 years of jurisprudence, that is tyranny, and the government will have chosen to devolve its legitimacy." Marriage has done nothing BUT evolve over the last 3,000 years. For example, wives (yes, you as a male could have many many. Women, funnily enough, were limited to only one husband.) were nothing more than property. Domestic violence? Ha! That was the husband's prerogative. It must be fascinating to live on the wrong side of history and see the world progress in spite of your intellectually dishonest views.

May 27, 2009

I think Barbara would be upset with him.

May 27, 2009

Bobby, I've seen that argument a lot and, frankly, it holds no water. Gay marriage advocates are arguing _for_ separate-but-equal provisions. So, to correct your analogy:"Black schoolchildren can attend high-quality black schools. White children can attend high-quality white schools. How is this unequal?" should be "Black schoolchildren can attend the same high-quality schools as whites but because they're not getting 'separate but equal' education it's unequal!" Stop trying to segregate the LBGT community and instead work for building common, equal communities.

May 27, 2009

"Domestic violence? Ha! That was the husband's prerogative." Yes, it is progress that domestic violence by men is more often prosecuted. But why is domestic violence by women not equally prosecuted? What kind of justice system allows a woman to shoot or stab her sleeping husband a dozen times and claim self defense? Why is it that in cases of mutual combat where the woman strikes first, it is the man who is carted off, "for the children"? For that matter what kind of progress is it for a once great tradition of justice to be morphed by gender warriors to,"Better ten innocent men go to prison than one guilty male rapist go free."

May 27, 2009

Don Meaker: "Homosexual men can marry....women. Homosexual women can marry....men. How are they not equal to heterosexuals?" Lmao, that is the worst logic ever. That's like saying why legalize interracial marriage, blacks can still marry, just not outside their race! See how absurd that is? Also, it's not equal because gays cannot marry their fellow loving, consenting adults whom they are attracted to.

May 27, 2009

Lmao, that is the worst logic ever. That's like saying why legalize interracial marriage, blacks can still marry, just not outside their race! See how absurd that is? Also, it's not equal because gays cannot marry their fellow loving, consenting adults whom they are attracted to.

May 27, 2009

Same sex marriage is but the thin end of the wedge. Already, a threesome has applied for a formal marriage. NAMBY is gearing up for action. Muslims will demand the right to marry 8 year old girls, because it's "in the book" (Koran). Where will it end? I dread to think.

May 27, 2009

Hmm? Do you think OLsen is truly concerned about the rights of gay people to wed or the ca$h to be had at all them gay divorcees?

May 27, 2009

Hmm? Do you think OLsen is truly concerned about the rights of gay people to wed or the ca$h to be had at all them gay divorcees?

May 27, 2009

Marriage has many aspects, but one essential factor is the ability, or at least the latent potential, for a male and a female to join together and produce children, whether it is actualizable potential or not. Produce children via sexual reproduction. A man can not EVER do this with another man, nor can a woman with another woman. CASE CLOSED. Ted Olson has a broken logic switch in his brain. No one is telling homosexuals they can't get together and enjoy whatever perversities they want, it is just existentially impossible for a man to marry a man or a woman a woman. Ted Olson thinks King Canute was wrong! Stay out, tide! The physical laws of the universe don't apply, here!

May 27, 2009

That quotation from Ted Olson sounds like something from the Onion. A constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry? Are you kidding me? What would the constitutional argument be, I wonder, against 3 people getting married? Or a brother and sister? Or a child and adult? Not the emotional argument ("oh those are icky...") but the intellectual argument. Are we to seriously believe the framers embedded in the Consitution the right for John Adams to marry Jefferson? Marraige is not a right. It is a license granted by states and those licenses have rules. Just like driving. The state discriminates on the basis of age for driving licenses (a practice that would in many other areas be illegal). Surely the Constitution protects the right to drive.

May 27, 2009

It's so easy to argue marriage is a right and privilege that only one man and one woman can attain. That's what I call arguing from the cheap seats. No one will ever deny you any rights. Enjoy your "benefits" of marriage while you have them, but expect the current administration to come after you soon for any monetary benefit you enjoy. News flash... you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those days are about over.

May 27, 2009

Frankly, it is time to get the government out of the business of granting marriage licenses. Ronald Reagan said it best: when you get in bed with the government, you're going to get more than a good night's sleep.

May 27, 2009

Bobby b is really onto something here. Let the female gay marry the male gay. They need to set up 'groups'. Male couples and female couples....marry the opposite sex and then they can move back in with their lovers. They get the benefits (health care, etc) and still get to be with their own lovers! Have your cake and eat it too!! Plus if they break up with their loves and get another (and another and another) they still reap the benefits of marriage to the opposite sex gay and won't clog up our court system with a gazillion divorces. Makes perfect sense to me!!

May 27, 2009

The "benefits" of marriage? HA! I've done my taxes every year I've been married and checked what we'd pay if single - it doesn't save you a dime. In fact it costs you money and eliminates (or makes it harder) for certain benefits (like Roth limits.) For all the spouse rights - I still had to fill out a lot of paper work (living will, durable POA, health care proxy, etc.) before my wife went in for labor.

May 27, 2009

Have you ever noticed that the argument of "rights" is always utilized by homosexual advocates to make their point for homosexual "marriage"? Since homosexuality was considered perverse in the 18th century, how could ANYONE think the founding fathers were thinking of protecting "homosexual rights" when writing the equal protection clause? God defined marriage, not man.

May 27, 2009

Jon Carr: Olson is a conservative like Spector was a conservative. His late wife was the conservative.

May 27, 2009

Ted is selling out. He wants a federal court to override the will of the people. That's called tyranny. And Ted knows that the founders never intended for the federal government to tell states how to handle such matters. It's high time Uncle Sam backed off. Ted should let the people of California write their own state constitution, and instead of intruding on their right to legitimate self-governance, he should work to force the feds to quit stepping over the line.

May 27, 2009

If only President Obama would stand up for gay rights like Mr. Olson.

May 27, 2009

Olson is a true conservative.Good for him!

May 27, 2009

"Jim May 27, 2009 Have you ever noticed that the argument of "rights" is always utilized by homosexual advocates to make their point for homosexual "marriage"? Since homosexuality was considered perverse in the 18th century, how could ANYONE think the founding fathers were thinking of protecting "homosexual rights" when writing the equal protection clause? God defined marriage, not man." Really? Blacks weren't equals, they were slaves. Women weren't equals either. But their rights are protected. Why is that? Because it's right. People of different races can get married.

May 27, 2009

My advice to the haters: THE CULTURE WAR IS OVER... AND YOU LOST HONESTLY, THE SOONER YOU GET OVER IT, THE BETTER YOU WILL FEEL ABOUT LIFE and always remember LOVE YOUR ENEMIES that is all

May 27, 2009

@tpe: Olson is not a "RINO" because Olson is not an elected official. He's free to do whatever he likes, though I wish he hadn't taken this case. @edh: Probably a bad idea to invoke Barbara Olson's memory here.

May 27, 2009

I find it interesting that the conservative intellectuals are abandoning the anti-marriage movement in droves. That movement is clearly losing steam; it can only do populist-type fear-mongering for so long without an intellectual base...

May 27, 2009

The best possible spin to put on this is that both men are just so full of themselves that they think they can charge ahead and win the fight for gays without actually talking to the gay people who have fought for equality for 50 years. The worst possible spin is that this is just a ploy to get the issue before the SCOTUS while it's still leans anti-gay. An unknown "civil rights organization" is funding this. FOLLOW THE MONEY! This thing stinks.

May 27, 2009

First, marriage is a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia. Second, marriage can also be a religious right as there are churches that will marry homosexuals. Third, there are numerous privileges granted to married couples. Trying dying unmarried without a will and see where your assets go. Fourth, the constitution was amended in the 1860's to acknowledge the rights stated here, therefore Adams and Jefferson weren't really concerned about it. Finally, true conservatives believe that as little government restriction as possible is best in all endeavors.

May 27, 2009

To the person who said this issue would be best NOT decided by the courts...it was. It was decided by the voters. It's in the courts because in this country, if we don't like the answer we get from the voters, we sue in the courts. Thus, it will ALWAYS be decided by the courts, like everything else, because we can't seem to respect the will of the people anymore. As to the issue of gay marriage-Californians already have equal rights. They're called civil unions, and they have all the same rights and responsibilities as people who are "married."

May 27, 2009

edh nailed it. Olson must know that if he wins, "homosexual" will be treated as a suspect class. Completely absurd. And the quasi-libertarian argument doesn't cut it. If your concern is getting government out of the bedroom, then don't let government perform MORE marriages! Be intellectually honest & call for the end of government involvement in heterosexual marriage.

May 27, 2009

This has nothing to do with homosexual marriage and everything to do with carring out Obama's wishes. Obama can carry on about marriage being about one man and one women, it's about religion blah, blah, blah. But here's how is really goes: Obama puts the players in place, they do the work and his wishes are fulfilled. Homosexual marriage becomes legal and Obama will not have to be bothered with a pesky social issue. If this stategy fails don't worry another is at hand, the Supreme Court.

May 27, 2009

This has nothing to do with homosexual marriage and everything to do with carring out Obama's wishes. Obama can carry on about marriage being about one man and one women, it's about religion blah, blah, blah. But here's how is really goes: Obama puts the players in place, they do the work and his wishes are fulfilled. Homosexual marriage becomes legal and Obama will not have to be bothered with a pesky social issue. If this stategy fails don't worry another is at hand, the Supreme Court.

May 28, 2009

I cannot believe some of the posted comments here and total lack of knowledge. Whether wanted or not, this was always going to go to the SCOTUS. As for Prop. 8, you cannot have 18k families with same sex partners 'legal' and deny all others the same benefits. This is our current debacle and it has to be fixed. BTW, Lee, regarding civil unions = marriage, they are not the same as, unfortunately, there is a distinction at the Federal level, and a state recognized civil union is not going to pass muster regarding Federal laws and benefits.

May 28, 2009

the argument that homosexuals should try and procrate is ridiculous. don't forget that it's heterosexual couples that give birth to these "homosexuals". the lack of empathy from these right christian groups hold no substance. if you are so holy, who gives you the right to be so judgemental? and in terms of gay men marrying gay women. Really? Who gets to pick who you marry. And if you want to go back to the 18th century - then why do we have divorce?? Should that "right" be taken away to?

May 28, 2009

Real conservatism is about limited government staying out of the private lives of people and letting them decide what is best for themselves. It's about time republicans step up and show they understand the meaning of 'small government' by supporting the repeal of Prop. 8!

May 28, 2009

Proof positive that lawyers are ALL about the money and the fame. RINO Olson takes the anti-constitutional position that the PEOPLE really have no rights. His position appears to be that any self-declared minority has the right to abrogate Constitutions, legislation, and the rights of the PEOPLE as a whole. When the liberal Supreme Court of California is forced to admit that the PEOPLE have a right to amend their Constitution, and RINO Olson disagrees, you can see vividly just why the Republican Party has died!

May 28, 2009

Gay marriage is to legalize a perversion, a sick sick perversion. And Ted Olsen is nothing but a sick, sick man and to go against the will of 70 to 80% of the voters and will of America is an outrage, we must stop the sickiness of gay marriage, people who all need to repent more than worry about marriage.

May 28, 2009

I am a happily married heterosexual soccer mom. I'm thrilled that Ted Olson is championing equality and justice for all. God bless him!

May 28, 2009

Just a comment to those folks who don't understand the ways that our tax codes are stacked against same sex couples: you can't transfer ownership of the home you share without incurring a tax bill, you have to pay tax on the health care benefits your employer may offer your domestic partner, your estate can't be passed on to your life partner without being subject to the estate tax and there's no social security survivor benefits despite how many years you may have supported one another. Let's let get government out of the business of penalizing committed same sex relationships!

May 28, 2009

Read the landmark case overturning laws against inter-racial marriage, Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1967). Simply substitute the word "gender" for "race" and Olsen's case is made.

May 28, 2009

I was a admirer of Ted Olsen. I have lost respect for him. Many of us are sick of lawyers and judges legislating from our courts. Trying to legitimize this behavior and biological abberrration and equating with marriage of men and women is simply perverse. Marriage is a privelege. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves. What next marriage with multiple people, animals.... What about pedifiles....when do we legimize and desensitize that. When do we simply reduce this to a biological aberration. Are there consenting children out there? What about their rights. This is bizzarre. Keep this out of the courts and on the ballot box!

May 29, 2009

This country is going down the tubes so quickly. Have you noticed the folks that are at all the protest march's? I have and if this is the end result of allowing them to marry I will have none of it. Most are poster children for degenerates with nothing productive or better to do. In my community where they marched they left trash and vandalism and were extremely rude and obnoxious. Who needs more of this???

May 29, 2009

This country is going down the tubes so quickly. Have you noticed the folks that are at all the protest march's? I have and if this is the end result of allowing them to marry I will have none of it. Most are poster children for degenerates with nothing productive or better to do. In my community where they marched they left trash and vandalism and were extremely rude and obnoxious. Who needs more of this???

May 29, 2009

The notion that gay marriage is a basic right is ludacris. Certainly the state (us) has a vested interest in preserving and promoting heterosexual marriage as a special relationship so we can perpetuate the human species. Children need the example of a loving mother and father. This reflects a self-evident truth. I am offended that the state would look upon gay marriage with the same legitimacy as heterosexual marriage. Males are ordered by nature for females and vice-versa. Homosexuality is thus a disorder and should be treated as such. And its way past time that people stand up to this outrage. Gays need to be respected as people and treated with compassion but that does not mean special legal rights!

May 29, 2009

How do gay people have special legal rights, Carlton? You're the one advocating for a group having special legal rights. It's been the position of the Court for almost fifty years now that marriage is about far more than the ability to procreate, which is why infertile people are afforded the right to a marriage. I really don't see who is getting special rights in your estimation other than straight, fertile couples.

May 30, 2009

no one's rights are being violated by prop8!! if you're black you're free to marry someone black!! if you're white you are free to marry someone white!! why do you libirils want to steal the rights of traditional people trying to prevent unnatural mixed race marriages!!

May 30, 2009

"Ronald Reagan said it best: when you get in bed with the government, you're going to get more than a good night's sleep." And it *should* seem "odd" how many fundies "forget" that the "separation" principle was included in the 2nd amendment to protect religions (belief, actually) from requiring government "approval".

Jun 1, 2009

Bravo to Ted Olson for standing up for human rights. This issue should not have been put to voters allowing only 27% of the 23 million eligible California voters to decide this issue.

Jun 1, 2009

So what's next on the agenda... your dog or your horse... maybe your favorite sheep?

Jun 1, 2009

If you don't belive in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. It's that simple. Why must you control what I am allowed to do? Rapists, child molestors, abusers all have the right to marry. Does that mean you believe in these horrible things? Does that mean that schools must teach that rape is ok? It is called a RIGHT to marry. That means anyone can get married. Once you start saying these people can, but these can't, it becomes a privilage. Anyone who believes in equality and freedom is ok with gay marriage. You do not have to agree with homosexuality, but with the principles our country was founded on.

Jun 6, 2009

You had better get in line. If you sign a petition to ban homosexual marriage, we we work to get you fired from your job. If you have a Bible study at work that does not support homosexual marriage, we will get that banned. If you object to your children being taught at school that homosexual sex is a good thing, we will get an injunction keeping you away from the school. You had better get in line.

Jun 8, 2009

Jon Carr May 26, 2009 "I applaud Olson for having the guts to stand up for the rights of others. I hope he isn't the last high-profile conservative to take a stand that may not necessarily be popular with his own side. Still, it would be best to see this issue not resolved by the courts." Jon thanks for you support, but I disagree with your last sentence. By stating that this issue should be worked out at the ballot box, you're saying that we don't deserve our right to marry until voters say we can. This is the essence of what is being challenged in court. The voters should never have been given the power to control our liberties. That is why I disagree with your last sentence. But, if Olson fails, your continued support for our equality is warmly accepted. Be well.

Dec 5, 2009

discount Christian Louboutin
cheap Christian Louboutin Shoes
discount Christian Louboutin Sandals
discount Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Shoes
mulberry handbags

Dec 21, 2009

links of london links of london
links london links london
links of london jewellery links of london jewellery
links of london sale links of london sale

Dec 25, 2009

authentic football jerseys
authentic jerseys
authentic nfl jerseys
authentic nhl jerseys
buy nfl jerseys
cheap football jerseys

Dec 25, 2009

ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
uggs shoes
bailey button uggs
ugg classicNorth Face Jacket
North Face
The North Face
Discount North Face

Dec 25, 2009

Timberland Womens Shoes
timberland leather
timberland size
timberlands for kids
timberland stores
Timberland boots
Timberland For Sale
timberland mary jane
North Face Jacket
North Face
The North Face
Discount North Face
Cheap North Face Jacket
timberland apparel

Dec 25, 2009

Nike max shoes
Lebron James Shoes
North Face Jacket
North Face
The North Face
Discount North Face
Cheap North Face Jacket
Lebron James Shoes
nike basketball shoes

Dec 25, 2009

UGG Classic Mini
UGG クラシックミニ
UGG Classic Tall
UGG クラシックトール
UGG Classic Short
UGG クラシックショートNorth Face Jacket
North Face
The North Face
Discount North Face

Dec 30, 2009

This phenomenomChina Wholesale is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and cell phonesChina Wholesale will skyroket your profits.cosplay costumes

Jan 3, 2010

Nike Kobe IV
Lebron James Shoes
Lebron James Shoes
nike basketball shoes
air max 2009
Allen Iverson Shoes

Jan 3, 2010

Timberland for kids
Mens timberland boots
Womens timberland boots
Cheap timberland boots
Timberland winter boots
Timberland work boots

Jan 3, 2010

ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
uggs shoes
bailey button uggs
ugg classic
ugg classic mini boots

Jan 3, 2010

authentic football jerseys
authentic jerseys
authentic nfl jerseys
authentic nhl jerseys
buy nfl jerseys
youth nfl jerseys

Jan 3, 2010

UGG Classic Mini
UGG クラシックミニ
UGG Classic Tall
UGG クラシックトール
UGG Classic Short
ugg australia 激安

Jan 12, 2010

In China being gay means being put into an insane asslym, and as china nearly owns us, they are not in agreement with olsen and bois who are two sick men

Post a comment