pro-family supporters are energized and will show up in record numbers in November with enormous implications for Democrats' chances of winning any elections at all
it will be electoral slaughter
and the winners will appoint judges who believe that a deviant judge in SF has no right to redefine the oldest institution in human civilization
at least, that's one of the consequences
wouldn't you hate to be a Democrat politician this fall?
remember when Bill Clinton messed himself up by supporting homosexuals in the military?
next election, voters threw Dems out of the White House and Newt Gingrich became the de facto President for the rest of Clinton's term, balancing the budget
Judge Vaughn has accomplished the same scenario for Barack Obama
a grateful Republican party says "Thank you, Judge Vaughn!"
I'm with Robert and so were the founding fathers, who declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Anon prefers ideas from the US Constitution more in line with the three-fifths compromise, where full rights of citizenship were only granted to some and not to others. Anon probably aligns with those right wing radicals who would eliminate the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to all who are born or naturalized here, even though doing so would send Orly Taitz, the leader of Anon's favored birther wingnut faction, back to former USSR where she was born.
If all you care about is the M word, would you support a law that gives committed same sex couples EVERY state and federal legal right and responsibility that married opposite sex couples have? If not, then your concern about the M word is utterly hollow.
You must have a pretty narrow range of experiences and acquaintances if you think that gay people do not wish to marry.
In terms of your "equivalence" statement, how does this play out? Do Jews want to be see their religion as the "equivalent" of Christiantiy? Do blacks want to see their "race" as equivalent to that of whites? The whole point is that under the American constitutional system, people are entitled to Equal Protection Under Law.
The attorney at the center of successfully arguing that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional calls Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling an example of "judicial responsibility."
Ted Olson told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday that it's not "judicial activism" when a judge follows the Constitution.
"Where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?" asked Wallace.
"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution, Chris?" replied Olson.
"The Supreme Court has looked at marriage and has said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. So you call it interracial marriage and then you could prohibit it, no? The Supreme Court said no. The same thing here," explained Olson.
"The judge after hearing three weeks of testimony and full day of closing arguments and listening to experts from all over the world concluded that the denial of the right to marry to these individuals in California hurt them and did not advance the cause of opposite sex marriage," Olson continued.
"This is what judges are expected to do. It's not judicial activism. It's judicial responsibility in the classic sense."
As the lawyer that successfully argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court in 2000, Olson's conservative credentials are unassailable. Wallace wanted to know why Olson would support gay rights in this case.
"We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage," said Olson.
Ted Olson made an impressive appearance on Fox News Sunday to discuss the Prop 8 ruling with Chris Wallace. The host brought up the same tired talking point about last week's ruling taking away the opinions of seven million California voters. Olson explained things to him this way:
"Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundamental constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated."
At the end of the show Wallace pays Olson a big compliment, telling him, "after your appearance today I don't understand how you ever lost a case in Supreme Court."
A little more combative and familiar set of exchanges occurred on the set of CBS’ Face The Nation, where guest host John Dickerson spoke with Olson’s partner on the Prop 8 case, David Boies, and Christian conservative Tony Perkins, representing the Family Research Council and the anti-gay marriage brigade.
But after Perkins opined on why he thought the legal decision was wrongly decided (and making sure to note a news report that Judge Walker himself is gay — by the way, could Boies have argued if he lost about the judge if he was straight?).
“What you have is one judge, and a district-level judge, and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only seven million voters in the state of California, but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments,” Perkins said.
But Boies, also considered one of the finest attorneys in the country (ask Bill Gates), didn’t feel like getting into a tit-for tat with Perkins, and said they were talking about the law, not one’s feelings about it:
“It’s easy to sit around and throw around opinions and appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, and cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do,” he said. “In a court of law, you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up, under oath and cross-examination… And when they come into court and have to defend those opinions, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply was no evidence or studies. That’s just made up. It’s junk science. And it’s easy to say on television. But we put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.”
11 Comments:
one more consequence:
pro-family supporters are energized and will show up in record numbers in November with enormous implications for Democrats' chances of winning any elections at all
it will be electoral slaughter
and the winners will appoint judges who believe that a deviant judge in SF has no right to redefine the oldest institution in human civilization
at least, that's one of the consequences
wouldn't you hate to be a Democrat politician this fall?
remember when Bill Clinton messed himself up by supporting homosexuals in the military?
next election, voters threw Dems out of the White House and Newt Gingrich became the de facto President for the rest of Clinton's term, balancing the budget
Judge Vaughn has accomplished the same scenario for Barack Obama
a grateful Republican party says "Thank you, Judge Vaughn!"
Don't the two of you have any human feeling for people who happen to be gay?
my feeling is that gays would be just fine without changing the definition of marriage
indeed, they don't really want to be married
they just want homosexuality to be considered the equivalent of heterosexuality
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'm with Robert and so were the founding fathers, who declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Anon prefers ideas from the US Constitution more in line with the three-fifths compromise, where full rights of citizenship were only granted to some and not to others. Anon probably aligns with those right wing radicals who would eliminate the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to all who are born or naturalized here, even though doing so would send Orly Taitz, the leader of Anon's favored birther wingnut faction, back to former USSR where she was born.
Anon,
Your "feeling" is not based on facts.
If all you care about is the M word, would you support a law that gives committed same sex couples EVERY state and federal legal right and responsibility that married opposite sex couples have? If not, then your concern about the M word is utterly hollow.
You must have a pretty narrow range of experiences and acquaintances if you think that gay people do not wish to marry.
In terms of your "equivalence" statement, how does this play out? Do Jews want to be see their religion as the "equivalent" of Christiantiy? Do blacks want to see their "race" as equivalent to that of whites? The whole point is that under the American constitutional system, people are entitled to Equal Protection Under Law.
The attorney at the center of successfully arguing that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional calls Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling an example of "judicial responsibility."
Ted Olson told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday that it's not "judicial activism" when a judge follows the Constitution.
"Where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?" asked Wallace.
"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution, Chris?" replied Olson.
"The Supreme Court has looked at marriage and has said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. So you call it interracial marriage and then you could prohibit it, no? The Supreme Court said no. The same thing here," explained Olson.
"The judge after hearing three weeks of testimony and full day of closing arguments and listening to experts from all over the world concluded that the denial of the right to marry to these individuals in California hurt them and did not advance the cause of opposite sex marriage," Olson continued.
"This is what judges are expected to do. It's not judicial activism. It's judicial responsibility in the classic sense."
As the lawyer that successfully argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court in 2000, Olson's conservative credentials are unassailable. Wallace wanted to know why Olson would support gay rights in this case.
"We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage," said Olson.
Ted Olson made an impressive appearance on Fox News Sunday to discuss the Prop 8 ruling with Chris Wallace. The host brought up the same tired talking point about last week's ruling taking away the opinions of seven million California voters. Olson explained things to him this way:
"Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundamental constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated."
At the end of the show Wallace pays Olson a big compliment, telling him, "after your appearance today I don't understand how you ever lost a case in Supreme Court."
A little more combative and familiar set of exchanges occurred on the set of CBS’ Face The Nation, where guest host John Dickerson spoke with Olson’s partner on the Prop 8 case, David Boies, and Christian conservative Tony Perkins, representing the Family Research Council and the anti-gay marriage brigade.
But after Perkins opined on why he thought the legal decision was wrongly decided (and making sure to note a news report that Judge Walker himself is gay — by the way, could Boies have argued if he lost about the judge if he was straight?).
“What you have is one judge, and a district-level judge, and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only seven million voters in the state of California, but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments,” Perkins said.
But Boies, also considered one of the finest attorneys in the country (ask Bill Gates), didn’t feel like getting into a tit-for tat with Perkins, and said they were talking about the law, not one’s feelings about it:
“It’s easy to sit around and throw around opinions and appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, and cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do,” he said. “In a court of law, you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up, under oath and cross-examination… And when they come into court and have to defend those opinions, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply was no evidence or studies. That’s just made up. It’s junk science. And it’s easy to say on television. But we put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.”
Olson and Boies looked really impressive on TV. The Alliance Defense Fund was entirely outclassed.
Post a Comment
<< Home