Ted Olson is an example of what the Republican Party used to be. Not for decades – not since Richard Nixon led the move to deliberately exploit racism with his Southern Strategy.
This conservative lawyer who loves his country for what has been and should be – is a reminder of traditional American conservatism. A lonely figure in today’s Republican Party.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5741 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Some people will always believe they have the right to treat certain groups of people poorly. In this case it is some people on the far right using religion to justify it. There is no justification and I for one am glad we have a constitution and court system that protects individuals from the mob mentality that is going on here.
Let’s not forget that Prop 8 passed in California in the same election in which Obama won 61% of the vote. The 37% that voted for McCain could have passed it alone, so it’s not just ‘conservative’ bigots that passed it.
“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” — Alexis de Tocqueville
I love his message, but I assume that every time he talks, Ambien and other sleep aids lose sales. Dude could talk meth addicts to sleep.
What blows my mind is that you would think traditional “Conservatism” would want to keep the Government out of the bed room and out of people’s personal lives. Unfortunately the far Religious Right has taken a strangle hold of power over the Republican Party and battles like this are the result.
I challenge anyone in support of banning same-sex marriage to give me one logical reason why the ban should be upheld that is not based on a religious belief. I have not heard any. It almost always goes back to being about “values” which we all know is code for religious theology to a lot of people.
Heard an interesting comparison between this decision and the the lawsuits that eventually led to the elimination of laws against inter-racial marriage. Essentially, it’s the same thing. Those opposed to gay marriage today are more organized and vocal so the fight will be uglier.
Anyway, IIRC from a few years ago the backstory on Ted is pretty interesting. He’s a pretty special guy.
#5 You’d be stealing money from the poor Insurance company.
JMRouse – #5, if you can find J.D. Unwin’s book called Sex and Culture (1938), that is a great non-christian and non-conservative look at why it is bad for society — an interesting read. He basically studied every culture from the beginning of time and what caused their downfall.
The problem here is that homosexuality is a behavior problem. Thus, allowing two individuals that choose to be homosexual, is not grounds for them to marry. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
The people of California have the right to define marriage as they see fit. To overturn this proposition is to tell the people of California that they have no right to determine the definition of a basic social structure.
I believe the people have that right, and that right is far more important than whether gays can marry each other or not.
This ruling is a slap in the face to the citizens who voted for this proposition. It is also a serious erosion of the effectiveness that the proposition process represents.
The court has grossly overstepped it’s authority in my opinion. This ruling needs to be appealed and overturned.
#9 Marriage is just a word, reproduction is the only thing that has only been between a man and a woman.
As always it comes down to money.
Change is inevitable, burying your head in the sand can’t stop it.
Eideard at his hate promoting best again. Turning Prop 8 into a Republican issue. Why is this clown allowed to post again??
Talk about being a racist!
Most of California’s Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html
This overturn is probably the WORST thing that could happen to gay rights.
Ok, here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
#9: The problem here is a behavior problem all right: Higghawker’s poking his nose into other people’s business.
Marriage hasn’t “always” been between a man and woman, though that’s most common. Study the marital practices of Rome and Greece sometime, just for a start. After that, check out polygamous practices in other cultures.
A quick points here.
This overturn is probably the WORST thing that could happen to gay rights.
Here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/EDEO1EOV7G.DTL#ixzz0vkE3s6KH
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
#9–Your ignorance is showing. Homosexuality is NOT a behavior, nor a choice. People don’t choose to be discriminated against. If you were willing to talk to any real live gay people you would know this, but your insularity keeps you unaware.
The thing is that everyone acts as if this were some sort of oppression that has recently been visited upon the homosexuals.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, a majority of the states had laws against sodomy, many targeted at same sex, some against opposite sex sodomy. The sexual act is an inseparable part of marriage, so how can any scholar who gives lip-service to original intent possibly say that the 14th applies to marriages when the marital act was illegal?
Since California will now let 2 men marry, or 2 women marry, why should they stop there? Why not 3 men or 3 women? What about good old fashioned polygamists? Are they not accorded rights under equal protection? There were certainly polygamist marriages at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment. Why can government/society tell 3 people what they can do in the privacy of their own bedroom, if they can’t tell 2 people what they can do in their bedroom?
Eideard at his hate promoting best again. Turning Prop 8 into a Republican issue. Why is this clown allowed to post again??
Talk about being a racist!
Most of California’s Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban.
http://tinyurl.com/5bppyx
I’m shocked by the stupidity of many posters and commentators on this blog.
This overturn is probably the WORST thing that could happen to gay rights.
Ok, here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://tinyurl.com/26g8wgq
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
Talk about being a racist!
Most of California’s Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban.
http://tinyurl.com/5bppyx
I’m shocked by the stupidity of many posters and commentators on this blog.
This overturn is probably the WORST thing that could happen to gay rights.
Ok, here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://tinyurl.com/26g8wgq
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
This overturn is probably the WORST thing that could happen to gay rights.
Ok, here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://tinyurl.com/26g8wgq
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
If I can marry anyone I want, can I marry my dog? He can’t speak but he can show how happy his is by wagging his tail.
Or what about this:
Can I marry 2 dudes? Or a man and a woman? Why is that outlawed? We’re all consenting adults. What right do you have to judge how I express my love? You harsh conservatives!
Where does it end?
Frogger,
Those “slippery slope” arguments are just plain stupid. Idiot.
You want plain stupid, Smartalix?
Look in the mirror.
Ok, here’s the playbook. Pass a law which has vast popular support. The minority doesn’t like it and fights the law. Law goes to appeals court which overturns the law, then Supreme Court ultimately overrules the Appeals court and reinstates the original law, not just for the state but for the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!
So Proposition 8 then becomes the law of the land.
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s bias will be overruled.
http://tinyurl.com/26g8wgq
This strategy has worked wonders for the gun lobby in the Heller and McDonald cases. Look it up.
You liberals who think you are so smart just got owned, and you’re celebrating.
#9 Higghawker
ALWAYS been between a man and woman? I don’t think so. For a LONG time it was a man and as many women as he could afford. (and still is in some places)
this whole issue boils down to 1 question: is marriage considered a human right or a legal right? if a government is not allowed to dictate who can marry, then why should government even be in the business of granting marriages at all? and we havent even gotten into the ol’ states rights thing… i say if one of the most liberal states in the union can get 60% of the vote against gay marriage, and one of the most liberal presidents we have ever had has came out on numerous occasions (albeit on the campaign trail where they will say anything) against it, i would say its time for a constitutional amendment for this…
Ted #10.
So, if we (Californians) pass a proposition that limits marriage between people of the same race, that is our business?
It’s our state, we can decide if we want whites mixing with mexicans and blacks… right? And those asians, they better keep to themselves. If you try tell us it is a violation of their basic human rights it’s like slapping us in the face.
Those arguments are interesting, but our society has deemed married people to have certain rights, and those rights are denied to some people because they can’t marry the person they love. How would you like it if your spouse could not be by your deathbed because of some arbitrary law? It is more for those reasons than any other, I think, that you can’t say marriage is only for some and not for others.
Ted: Change marriage in your message above to slavery. Now see why voting on a class of people’s rights is not valid.
#13, nice logical fallacy of the “slippery slope.”
Also Known as: The Camel’s Nose.
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Having said that, you are right that sodomy laws originally covered opposite sex couples too. Oral sex is considered sodomy. Funny how I don’t see people fighting to uphold that part of these laws. Not many men or women for that matter, religious or not, would fight to ban oral sex.
These laws are from an outdated time in American history. Much like the laws that prevented “colored people” from marrying or drinking from the same water fountains as white folk. At some point we have to lift ourselves, as a culture, above such laws.
A real conservative would insist that government has NO role in the bedroom and that the only business of government concerning marriage is record keeping.
Yeah, there’s a lot to think about, for instance:
theonion.com/articles/cult-divided-on-whether-to-let-women-become-telepa,17842/