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 5819 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Breetai==your animus towards JMRouse is totally misguided. Just to begin with, there is no contract between two people. There is always a third: the government.
So, the issue really is “should “marriage” be an activity monitored/regulated/considered in any way by government? And to that, people can have their own opinions, but the law is pretty much settled, so its really only people arguing against reality.
Do you actually argue for the government to have no say in human couplings but rather to focus on tax effects on their kiddies? Aren’t we all somebodies kiddies?
You really are babbling. I guess that happens when fascist fucking idiots are spotted===but could it be a mirror?
Haw, haw. When emotions come to the fore, the place to look is within.
I am amused by the amazing legal standard taken by this federal judge. Paraphrased: “I don’t think the state of California has an interest in restricting who can get married, therefore it must be unconstitional”
Marriage is so 20th century. This is a moot issue.
So, did anybody bother DOWNLOADING (forget about reading, because who does that?) the judge’s opinion before making up their minds regarding the case?
Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/29cyz3t
Warning: 136 pages but with a lot of margins, huge font-size, double spaces, and a good read, if you actually are serious
SL==is that what he said? The decision is here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Like so many other “momentous” cases, the law actually turns on an issue that mystifies the common man.
It actually all rests on the nature of privileged conversations. A nice little cascade of suspect legal concepts.
My favorite of course is the case that provided equal housing/public access to all the races was mandated by the Commerce Clause==treating people as if they were “goods in transit” and not subject to discrimination. Seems the 13th Amendment is not needed or referenced at all.
Same thing here.
Get on that Donkey and ride, Ride, RIDE!!!!
#52
You are confusing a simple “agreement” and a “contract.” Two people could agree to live together and say they are married. That does not involve any other power. For it to be a “contract” there has to be a higher authority, and that authority is the Government.
Contracts are legal agreements. How can you have a legal agreement without law?
Silly Libertarian beliefs. How I miss smoking weed in college and deluding myself into thinking the Government should have no real power outside of national defense.
tdkyo==thank you. Your cite looks better than mine. I was uncomfortable there was “no date” on my cite==none on yours either, but it reads closer to the facts?
Lack of “dates” is with us more and more. The web is especially bad at that. “Page Source” always shows the last second as the current time of the page.
Bad mojo. Now to read the “real case” and spot the “disputable assumptions.”
Does seem to me the current SCOTUS will overturn this case on a number of applicable grounds. Which one would be the farthest removed from a constitutional question? Perhaps a reading of the CA Const itself? Or the procedures required of a referendum? Yea, that sounds like the ticket.
#59===CLASSIC: “Silly Libertarian beliefs. How I miss smoking weed in college and deluding myself into thinking the Government should have no real power outside of national defense.” /// YEA, Verily!!
#59 JMRouse
You really are a brainwashed slave aren’t you? You just can’t conceive of the idea of not having the security of government loving and touching you in your private places. I’ll bet you go though the TSA scanners a second time because you love feeling like a slave.
I feel like I’m talking to a Martian.
#61
I do think most fall under the 24th type:
http://bit.ly/9uyRRj
#62==Breetai==completely irrelevant. Typical LIEberTARD. Do you have anything to actually contribute?
Here’s a hint: look to the middle ground between two extremes. You can DO IT! I have faith.
#62
Damn you are right! I never realized the government granting marriage licences makes us all slaves. It’s all clear to me now. Gather your muskets and meet me outside of D.C. It is time we all REVOLT!
FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!*
*In best Mel Gibson voice.
Marriage is a construct of society; it is supposed to assure the children from a union have the necessary support and protection from an adult male. Failing that, marriage serves no useful purpose to society.
Smith—almost: the traditional purpose of marriage was to assure title to property, mostly real estate, as a tax base to the King.
CARP==love the typos that cause a draft to post.
Not to put to fine a point on it: The powers that control society have never given a crap about kiddies. Thats exemplified by how they are shot as vermin when they are disposed of into the alleys of overcrowded urban centers. Nope, the concern for kiddies is a recent religious overlay==never going to the reason why there are too many of them or what is needed for proper rearing, given that every sperm is precious.
#24
“Marriage” is a religious institution.
No it is not and never was. It BECAME one when religion became organised to take it under its wing.
Marriage was created by society to define clearly and without doubt to who the father’s were-gild would go to.
#34
The crux of this argument lies with one not wanting to obey the law of God. Whether you like it or not, YOU ARE under the law of God, and will be judged one day. God instituted marriage and therefore HIS law still stands.
And the overriding laws of God (in the Judeo-Christian-Islam) is to love God and love each other as yourself.
Hence if YOU can marry under the rules of Government, then so should THEY.
Render to government what is the government’s.
#38
you don’t want to live where religion=law. Think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Screw that think Massachusetts Bay Colony. We don’t have to go outside of the nation to get that religious legal BS.
#42
HUZZAH! Now Dallas is free to marry Bobbo!
I want to give Bobbo away! Or will I be giving Dallas? Who’s the pitcher and who’s the catcher?
#43
Government has no business granting licenses for marriage in the first place.
It IS their business. There must be a civil contract to know who gets what in case of divorce or death.
what 8 billion people on a planet capable of supporting maybe 3 billion?
Fiction, myth.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ5
#45
Love how liberals trot this out, like they were in love with those Republicans then that they are now praising.
I doubt Lincoln would even recognise the party he was part of.
#53
Marriage is just a contrivance by society to promote monogamy in a species that apparently isn’t very monogamous. Do away with the whole damn thing.
Thank you! God I wish people would listen to that idea.
I agree with Susan B. Anthony, she said that marriage is legal prostitution. It is.
I am glad gays can marry and be another normal member of The Republic, it is about time!
Cursor_
Just get government out of the business of taxing marriage and taking it back to a real traditional marriage. It will only be allowed if it’s arranged by the parents for political reasons only.
Ron Paul 2012 – and more of this!
Cursor==you say: “Thank you! God I wish people would listen to that idea.
I agree with Susan B. Anthony, she said that marriage is legal prostitution. It is.” /// At college, I had the opportunity to talk daily with “the most beautiful girl in the world.” I relayed the notion of marriage as prostitution to her and she looked at me with those beautiful eyes, in that beautiful face, on top of that beautiful body, and said in her beautiful voice: “What do you mean? Women marry for sex too.” Then I failed to make a million dollars before graduating and she married someone else.
Marriage as prostitution: a misogynist male viewpoint if I ever heard one. Heh, heh.
Marriage is/was NOTHING.
Female rights? LOOK THEM UP and when they happened.
Women in the USA had NO RIGHTS, even to their OWN children, until about the 70’s.
For all the LAWS past..IT STILL ISNT/WASNT EQUAL, or even close.
Marriage is an institution..ONLY to show WHO the slave belongs to. Rights for women only started in the LATE 40’s.
what do they GAIN with marriage? SHARING of benefits, ONLY.
Pedro: The walrus is Paul. Man you’ve been a naughty boy, let your knickers down. Silly you can’t understand something so clear when its been written down and even set to music.
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill Albert Hall. I’d love to turn you on, but some jobs are only fit for a donkey.
>not since Richard Nixon led the move to deliberately exploit racism
Yea, the EEOC and expanding affirmative action are racist.
The overall drivel here is above average and conclude that progress is being made with the general sheeple population. The religious fringe is well, hopeless.
..and nope, I have my own long term “partner” thank you and I’m sure Bobbo has a wonderful nerdy spouse to play scrabble with so no hook up in the horizon.
As I have said before, marriage had good societal benefits for instance to document ownership of women to what “owner”. I’m afraid this “contract” has now failed modern society largely because the taliban is claiming rights to the new contract terms AND forcing that into government.
I couldn’t care less about marriage if it wasn’t baked into laws that affect me. If the government needs to stick their foot in human relationships (as the Conservative sheep want), then go with civil unions as an unbiased law of the land. The fanaticals can afterwards apply their own government free ceremony with water, rice, balloons or pie throwing contest for all I care.
It WILL come to this I am sure, but at least 10% of the older sheeple population needs to die first.
Dallas==hmmmm. How do you know the wifey and I play scrabble? With a vocabulary 4 times larger than mine, she really hated it as I beat her time after time. Then she learned how to avoid opening up the high score locations, and I’ve been toast ever since.
I’m curious. Could you list what “injuries” you feel you are subject to by not having the label “married” applied to you?
What I’m thinking, is that certain privileges are denied you which is related but different 90% of which could be achieved thru written documentation.
I know what the popular press offers up to both of the questions above, just curious as to what the real world views as important.
Libertianism is the opium of the delusional.
#77 Bobbo.. I say “scrabble” affectionately and surely was right. I was going to say stamp collection but I thought that was too 50’s.
Anyway, the injuries I suffer are vast and severe. Remember, I determine was is vast and sever because I am the injured.
You pretty much hit spot for me. I need to go out of my way and significance expense to achieve 90% of what is free, accessible and common to you. Kinda pissed me off that when I moved to Texas, the contracts signed in florida (inheritance, medical and hospitalization visit rights) were not valid and the taliban controlled texas government required me to submit news ones (I hope it sticks because I’d hate t pay grease money to these bible thumping scumbags).
Anyhoo….. the other 10% is simply a laundry list of annoyances from partner gym memberships to being able to get my name and his name on a fucking insurance card because of a “computer issue”.
Since I pay more taxes than 95% of the average sheeple by a mile, I do not need to put up with this. I would say, lately I have been getting lots of love when I bought a Prius for me and Volvo from my handsome and we are dining out.
I’m willing to settle with the Taliban at this point. I merely ask that the annual school local taxes we both have paid over the years to train their spawn to be bigots get refunded to me. I return I waive all claims to marriage. Do you think that is a good deal?
Dallas==you ask: “…..Do you think that is a good deal?” //// Well sure. I think all property owners EVERYWHERE would give up their claims to marriage in order to avoid property tax? What????? You thought you were different from anybody else? Ha, ha. No, you are just a flaming hypocrite, as are we all. Maybe slightly different ox getting gored, but hypocrites all.
I passed thru Texas once–no, twice. I assume Texas property taxes are “local” and used mostly to support schools? So, your most rational argument against paying property/school tax is you don’t have any kiddies? But neither do I, and I pay them regularly knowing that society needs edumacated kiddies. If you think they are homophobic pond scum now, what if they had only home schooling===in Texas!!!! Sends shivers down my back, and I only passed thru!
Ok, so you get 90% of the rights you want and are simply pissed certain (what 3-4?) documents had to be resigned?
As stated==not the most horrible of horribles I can think of. An irritant, a constant irritant, a constant unnecessary aim to dehumanize irritant?==Yes.
But ultimately, not a single denial of any right do you list. If you think of any that you would care to share, please post them?
I get very uncomfortable when refusing to Sing God Bless America or to Salute the Flag. Group animosity is a burden and a threat. More ironic when its an expression of the very freedom being symbolized and supposedly honored? We all bear our crosses.
Take government out of marriage. Make ‘marriage’ a purely religious choice.
It should be my choice who I want to live with, I should have the right to designate anybody that I want to designate to visit me in the hospital, bury me and be my heir when I die, etc.
I should be able to choose 5 women as “wives’ if I want to, with equal rights. One woman should be able to choose 5 husbands if she wants to. As long as there is no deception and everybody is OK with the arrangement, then whose business is it but their own to tell them to live otherwise.
Awake==you have all those choices. If you want to play with the government and its categories, you play to their tune. Surviving “spouses” are a cost to society when they delay estate taxes or increase the payout on a retirement benefit, or collect on an insurance policy. As long as your choices don’t affect my pocket book, I say “go for it.”
((Monetary effect: very minor but at least are “real” unlike the moral fog put up by both sides of the issue.))
True freedom is a hard thing to acheive without sombody feeling slighted. If we were a truely free society, anarchy would exist and only the most powerfull would have true freedom. Most would live in fear. That is why we have developed rules to live by.
There are peeps that hate things other peeps do and seek to restrain them. And sometimes there are a mass of peeps that fall into line on issues and they succed in doing so. It is times like these, when the minority say,”this ain’t right”, and win, that I have hope for the future of humanity.
This is a huge victory for a minority group. A small step for humanity, on a long road.
The question now is, what is the next step? And will that step be forward?