Ted Olson is a constitutional lawyer and a long-time conservative voice in the Republican Party. He was George W’s attorney in the 2000 election case Bush v Gore. Later, he was appointed Solicitor General of the United States by George W. Bush.
He joined with his opponent in the 2000 election case, David Boies, in filing suit against Prop 8 which had overturned California law allowing gay marriage.
Here’s what he has to say about the 9th Circuit Court backing the latest victory over Prop 8 – and taking the case to the Supreme Court:
What’s the problem with NOT calling it ‘marriage’?
Man and women are presumed to be capable of natural procreation; whether they are found to be sterile or deficient in some way later – or decide not to reproduce for that matter – does not make this union less unique and special in this aspect and thus can be equated to homosexual unions. This is the argument often made to demand ‘marriage’. It’s ‘pretend game’ to me. Why do LGBT value ‘marriage’ so much? No one should be offended to be called ‘gay’, so why some term other than ‘marriage’ is wrong?
If the issue is equal right in financial benefits of the partners then that’s ok, but the union is intrinsically different so why not call it something else?
Good point. Let’s call it garriage.
Two gays got garried and they lived happily ever after until they got givorced.
Problem solved.
My gawd, now the anti-Semites have shown up! We have more than enough turdballs in here right now, why not take your pathetic soapbox and slink back into the obscure dark corner of Hell reserved for you. You are less welcome than a wet fart in an elevator.
[And he’s outta here- ed.]
I think the basic problem is government involvement in marriage period. If you didn’t give special privileges to “married people” then no one would care about getting one. So now you have to argue that one group is entitled to special treatment and another is not — that is a pretty good definition of discrimination.
All the stupid arguments for this discrimination are almost exact replicas of the arguments used years ago to argue against racial intermarriage that today sound so silly. Just plug in the words”mixed race couple” instead of “homosexual couple” and you will see what I mean. Back then we were told it was against the Bible, it would destroy the meaning of marriage and probably bring about the end of the world. (Hint: It didn’t)
Surely all these opponents realize they are fighting a loosing battle, don’t they? Just ask a group of young people under the age of 25 is this is an issue. The overwhelming majority will tell you it is a stupid argument — of course gays should be allowed to marry.
The rest of you can go stand over there behind the Wrong Side of History line with the pro-slavery folks, anti-women-suffrage crowd and evolution-is-a lie bunch and compare notes.
msbpodcast says:
2/8/2012 at 6:53 pm
I like people who quote Voltaire. /// Thats all it takes? He was quite the quotable social critic: “Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”
— Voltaire
He was a French philosopher living in the late 1700′s. /// Indeed.
If he read bobbo‘s subsequent ignorant comment, he’d throw up in his mouth. /// I bet he would spew to the ground. I’ve noticed this phrase of “into my/his/her mouth” is gaining currency. Maybe a burp, but “throw up” by its plain meaning would not remain in one’s mouth.
Voltaire does show the hold religion can gain on someone though. All the anti religious and anti superstitious/pro science pronouncements he made and yet he often made a distinction between superstition and religion. A spin doctor of his day in that regard.
What is a same-sex union of a man and a woman?
If it was just about two people in love and children had nothing to do with it, the government would never have gotten involved to begin with. Yes there is the issue of men leaving their wife for a younger woman, but that wouldn’t have been enough.
After viewing the video, I can think of one problem with their argument. Gays can’t procreate. At least not naturally. And marriage for heteros was basically to establish certain legal rights of property and inheritance, for growing families. Not just for people who wanted to hump each other, until they got tired of it. It was a population growth stimulus advantage. Many gay couples couldn’t care less about having children. Not all, but I’d suspect most aren’t. They ought to be honest about it. And even some hetero couples feel that way. But likely it’s a much smaller percentage. And offspring can happen to heteros, even when not part of their plan.
Gays aren’t likely to have kids, accidentally. Not unless one or both of them are really bisexual women. And we haven’t heard any Bis wanting to get married, yet. So you can’t tell me that many gay couples, are only getting hitched because of the sex and some illusion that it makes it all socially accepted. Why do they even care? And once the youth fades, they’ll be wanting the divorce next. So they can trade up for a new models. Because I’m sure some think that’s what all the heteros do.
And they might just say they want an annulment, because they didn’t produce any children. Which is much cheaper legally, than divorce proceedings. So they get to break up much easier, and more often, than most hetero couples can or do. How is that, being equal?
I think maybe the gays ought to to have to pay an annulment tax, for being married. So they aren’t tempted to abuse the institution. I’ll bet they scream about that. But how can they possibly defend wanting equal annulment rights, if they’re devoted to love in the first place? Yeah, that’ll be a tough one to sell to the public. Sure, let them have gay marriage. But make divorce and annulment very difficult, and very expensive.
God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
-Voltaire
That quote just clarified my world-view a bit =]
Many thanks! So, so true.
It has become clear there is only one solution:
Let the gay marriage people form their own country, let the no gay marriage people form their own country. Let them till the land and prosper. And then 3 generations later, oh wait …
That joke (it was, right?) got me thinking. The gays will get Social Security benefits some day. But they’re not producing the next generation that will help pay for it. So basically, their marriage unions are a burden on the system. Because most of it depends on people having kids. So maybe the gay couples should be randomly chosen to adopt kids, if they haven’t already volunteered to. That way they will be truly equal to hetero couples, who have to bare the expensive of raising kids. Who then ultimately get jobs, and pay for their parents’ Social Security benefits. Enough of this government sanctioned freeloading, by minorities.
In fact instead of being horrified about gay marriage. Maybe we ought to encourage more gays to get married. Because the law has a different standard about violence, when people are married. They label it Domestic Abuse, or something. And spouses sometimes get away with killing their mate (accidental of course) . And go on to get married again. And maybe kill again (sadly), before the law thinks twice that it’s not just an accident. So why shouldn’t gays enjoy the same legal loophole, and the courts’ 18th century thinking, of their domestic abuses being trivialized? That way, not only do they not multiply in numbers. They tend to self-destruct, on occasion.
Yes, I think the plan has worked out just fine. By denying gays getting married, we’ve convinced them that it’s something they absolutely can’t live without. And once they get it married, they can’t blame the straights for the pain they’ll end up putting themselves through. Because marriages always work out so well for everyone. Just ask Claus von Bülow.
Will you mandate forced adoption for non breeding heteros too?
Hell, how about for single people? Social Security is in no way tied to or dependent upon marriage.
Easy solution is to give a larger tax credit per child, that can be applied towards payroll taxes.
In truth, for those of you who can accept it …
Let’s say the Supreme Court either decides to not hear the case or goes with the idea of gay marriage. It will only last 30-40 years even in California.
When the indigenous Americans reach critical voting mass … Mexicans for the unwashed masses … it will be their cultural preferences that make the government decisions.
Hence, none of this silly little debate matters. Not just now. You see, it never did.
…only to the extent that their culture remains intact. You should not overlook the importance of education and the American culture to overwhelm and overlay the indigenous Hispanic culture. One or two generations and they don’t speak Spanish anymore, think of Arkansas as where they are from and start falling away from the Catholic Church.
“[And he’s outta here- ed.]” /// Wow! That was cool. First time in my experience to “notice” the ejection. Darn!!! I only half read the comment because it was rather idiotic. A rubber stamp kind of comment not connecting any of the issues being discussed.
So stupid though I doubt anyone would have been offended by it, other than the demonstration of what some people consider to be “an opinion.” But I see THAT here all the time!! A good call by the editor nonetheless. If the thread had touched upon a Jewish question or Israel at all, I wonder if it would have been deleted? Out of the blue as it was, no defense for it really. Not even censorship really but just a house keeping effort for relevance?
I wonder how long Voltaire would last on this forum. If it were run by Englishmen? or the Catholic Church? or during the Inquisition?
Ha, ha.
Agent provocateur.
YOU KNOW: several years ago I was “for” gays not being allowed to have the status of “married.” I thought the language, history, function, tradition of marriage justified such a position. Of course: let two people CONTRACT as they wish with every right and privilege of marriage==just “call it” something else. Garriage would have been fine. I thought the same thing for May/December marriages not for the purpose of bearing and rearing a family, call them Trophies. And you could make as many categories as you wish.
I wasn’t strongly against it and I was comfortable with whatever the majority will might be. Why should my “barely care preference” that doesn’t affect me at all outweigh what becomes a life defining discrimination for someone else? You’re a gay and don’t like it? Well, life is hard. Be happy you can be married in all respects except the name. Let marriage be a church/religious function/title and let the State issue only Certificates of Adhesion==or whatever neutral honorific might apply.
What turned my mind to being pro marriage for Gays was finally the same mechanism that keeps me turned on the issue of Human Caused Global Warming: the idiocy of the arguments against it.
You think being really, really stupid only affects you and your mate, children and extended family? No, my friend. You have a subtle affect father than your stupidity may perceive. People you would never think smile politely at your face, and privately change their mind.
Ain’t democracy a wonderful thing?
#
Hmeyers2 says:
2/8/2012 at 10:23 pm
In truth, for those of you who can accept it … /// Oh, good. HM is a right wing nut, but academically grounded. This should be a challenge.
Let’s say the Supreme Court either decides to not hear the case or goes with the idea of gay marriage. It will only last 30-40 years even in California.
When the indigenous Americans reach critical voting mass … Mexicans for the unwashed masses … /// Indgenous Americans can only apply to the Indians if anyone at all? By what interpretation could the Mexicans be anything except the first invaders after the original occupiers?—and for most of California THAT was us white guys unless you think some massive land grant conveys any real authority?
it will be their cultural preferences that make the government decisions. /// Gee–HM==I think you are playing with expurgation here. Mexicans are not a breed apart from other hoomans. Once assimilated into California Leftist culture, they behave just like everyone else. Cinco ce Mayo not withstanding, of course.
Hence, none of this silly little debate matters. Not just now. You see, it never did. /// No, I’m not getting you here. Even if in a parallel reality you were “right” ((and I do assume you would be RIGHT in every universe)) how would it not matter for the 30-40 years you propose? Naaa–always a rightwing nut but now you are just being racist. At least it took a deep scratch to bring it out, but its just about as irrelvant to the issues of this thread???? A closer case to be sure.
As I understand the ruling–its all about the CALIFORNIA Sup Ct interpreting the Ca Constitution and how it might interact with the US Const? The Supremes rarely interfere in such interpretations. All depends on how State Law oriented the case is as opposed to Fed Constitution. I love the continued bigotry in labeling the Ninth Circuit as so liberal the Supremes love to over rule it. Those 9-0 decisions are gonna burn for more than 30-40 years.
Batter Up!
And that’s the truth.
And that’s why we must fight against any harm to our national existence. Yes, our national interest is threatened because the imperialists want to keep the state and the imperial empire alive at any cost. They’re willing to trade away all of our rights and interests just to keep the imperial state alive.
It’s not worth keeping alive.
We have a right to a distinct and separate nationality. It’s called human rights. We don’t have to accept invasion or imposition of injurious circumstances just to keep the state on life support.
We don’t have to see that the state’s “Supreme” courts have any authority over us. These decisions only represent the state’s desire to ensure its supremacy over our lives.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Constitution is dead. All manner of injurious laws have been imposed on us.
Pull the plug.
Bobbo, in truth I don’t care one way or the other, but enjoy presenting funny points of view.
People like to make big deals out of things that are not a big deal.
And there is nothing in this that is a big deal. It is just 2 groups of humans arguing over definitions of legal status.
Personally, I think nothing the government decides is of much true importance. But my high brow views are typically lost on others ….
Uh, conservatives are sorta opposed to change by definition. It’s true that they’ve supported liberty, but only for those who already have it.
“What do I care if some gay people are deigning their heterosexuality.”
“The gay community could compromise on the marriage, they could respect that marriage today stems from a religious tradition that has become an institution in this country. But they don’t they want to infringe on an institution that traditionally they rejected. They wanted to forge their own culture and identity apart from heterosexuals /families or ‘Breeders.’ It’s that one of the original messages of the Gay Pride Parade. What happened to that?”
“Why should those opposed to the gay life-style have to accept it? Isn’t the rejection of homosexuality a natural heterosexual mechanism – aren’t heterosexuals born that way, to reject having sex with the same sex?” Should heterosexuals be allowed to reject homosexuality (practices etc.), just as homosexuals reject heterosexuality (practices etc.)?”
“It is not that God is against gays, it is human biology, and the human race.”
“I was born to be repulsed by being gay, the human race depends on it.”
“How many civilizations put homosexuality to its forefront like they do heterosexuality? Has there ever been a nation of homosexuals? Or a people all homosexual? The Greeks tried, at one point, but it failed. Shouldn’t we learn from history?”
“The gay argument that marriage is about ‘LOVE’ is hilarious, cause it tells you how much [homosexuals] know about marriage….nothing.”
“What would solve this gay vs. straight problem is if we all where born sexually functioning hermaphrodites. Since that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. It will then be the continued mission for gays to piss off the conservative Christians out of spite.”
“Acceptance of gay marriage will be a legal gateway for those sick pedophiles to freely work their perversions on children though adoption. That is scary, cause you know those sick bastards will try and a good amount will succeed. Is it not bad enough that it happens already without giving them a pass. The Catholic church gave pedophiles a pass and see what happened there. Imagine your sexual predators being your legal guardians. I know it all ready happens without gay marriage, but do we need to compound the problem? That alone is reason not to support gay marriage as it stands. “
Now after quoting opinions of others, it’s my opinion this whole affair isn’t about civil rights. Nope it isn’t. It is about taxes, small business, insurance companies, politicians and all the politics surrounding those things. Obviously, it is more fun to argue civil rights than the boring dry tax code, and the other things I mentioned.
Seriously? Americans still have their knickers in a knot over same sex marriage?
You guys need a hobby or something. I hear philately is fun.
Dr Spearmint Fur, sir we do have a hobby. It is dickering over this kind of …..[stuff]. We are a competitive lot, liberals vs. conservatives are the teams, and it is a game we play very well as testament to the number of responses on this thread. There are no rules. It is easy to play, all you need is an opinion. We live for crap like this. Just ask the pro like Bill Maher and Ann Coulter.
Don’t get me wrong the game is good, no matter what you think of it. It gives us a means to express our opinions. Something other countries can’t do.
“Something other countries can’t do.” *snort*
I’m sick and tired of this. LET THEM GET MARRIED! And as the old joke goes, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.
My only argument is that I oppose marriage elevating any individual simply because they decided to make a life long commitment to another person. Just look at the tax laws (if you believe there are laws with regard to the Department of Internal Revenue) and you’ll see what I mean. It’s not fair to give any class of people special consideration – for any reason – especially when those advantages/disadvantages involve taxes or any other governmental economics.
I’m also damn sick and tired of having to pick up the slack at work for some a-hole who has kids and needs to leave work early just so his/her kids can get to soccer practice or even just to get them off the curb of the schools parking lot. Just like marriage, that too is a CHOICE but it’s a choice that affects others!
“I’m also damn sick and tired of having to pick up the slack at work for some a-hole who has kids and needs to leave work early just so his/her kids can get to soccer practice”
Somewhere in a country like Somilia, someone with real problems farts in your general direction.
If only there were a way to blame America’s housing collapse and resulting recession on gay marriage, we’d have ourselves a pot of political GOLD!!! Remember how many things were blamed on the Supreme Court decision that banned organized school prayer?
Reality has no rightful place in politics.
I always get confused.
Conservatives are big on Jesus, but Jesus was disruptive of the status quo and otherwise was a liberal troublemaker of his times.
That’s why they nailed him to a tree.
I should rephrase for clarity:
That’s why the conservatives of his time nailed him to a tree.
Because he was a liberal troublemaker taking about compassion for the poor and compassion for all the other people shut out by culture at that time.
#
Hmeyers2 says:
2/9/2012 at 8:49 pm
Bobbo, in truth I don’t care one way or the other, but enjoy presenting funny points of view./// Funny? Well….I’ve always suspected a sense of something in the background. Same with Dismal. But conjugate this for me: why “humor” from a stick in the mud conservative position? Why not the same humor from a lefty? While I laugh at much of what I post, its only because of what I DIDN’T post==a very private affair. Whats left for the observant reader is just a bunch of misspelled words, taunts, scatology, and verbal diarrhea. At least, I’m not Pedro.
People like to make big deals out of things that are not a big deal. /// Many do post that way. Should we both assume they have a sense of humor too?
And there is nothing in this that is a big deal. It is just 2 groups of humans arguing over definitions of legal status. /// No. In truth==if you actually “care” about any issue you want to name, this veil of tears can be a very sad place. What dreams are not ignored if not intentionally trashed? ….. and if you don’t care about something/a few things===are you actually alive? Not much.
Personally, I think nothing the government decides is of much true importance. /// You only kid yourself then.
But my high brow views are typically lost on others …. /// High? well…..maybe…..but not brow. If a view is typically lost on others, shouldn’t you spend a bit more time on exposition?
Ha, ha. Rising above it all often results in collisions with cumulo-granite. Off course as such routes often are.
Yea, verily.
“If a view is typically lost on others, shouldn’t you spend a bit more time on exposition?”
Rarely yes, but mostly no. Most humans live in a dark cave of willfully chosen ignorance.
They don’t “think” — not because they can’t, but because it feels safer and more comfortable to “not think”.
So it is more fun to twist them up with the spaghetti of their own way of (not) thinking and see how they react.
HM–ok, one more move: Why do you orient your contribution to this thread on the willfully ignorant and in posting in like manner only keep them in such bondage?
What are you evil?
Ha, ha. But we have exampled and answered that for quite some time. Sure you aren’t trapped in your own perception? Covered by the fleas you have chosen to lie ((never have gotten that homonym straight in my mind)) down with.
Here’s a challenge you might apply to the rest of your life as well: one out of ten times, post your best thoughts.
Try it.
Why do I always have to hear about people who like buttsex and rubbing ginas
You don’t. Like HM—why do you fixate on that when all is available to you?
because that is the only thing that makes us different