Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Ted Olson absolutely hits a home run on Fox News Sunday while defending Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on the gay marriage ban.
I usually do not ask my visitors to suffer through Fox News interviews (Unless Palin is making a fool of herself again of course), but this is a MUST SEE interview. You will love it, trust me.
Before you start calling me a homophobe, I would like to state that I do not oppose gay marriage and could not care less if someone wants to marry their cat. To each their own. Who people love is their business and no one has any right to say who they should fall in love with.
But I find it disturbing that one person can override the will of the many. If it would have been a court case that was superseded by this judge's decision that is one thing, but when it is something that was on the ballot and people voted on it and the majority were against it is something else.
Nicely done! Chris Wallace keeps trying to ask him why 7 million voters' voices should be ignored and Ted very patiently keeps reminding Chris that it's in the Constitution that EVERYONE has the fundamental right to be married. It doesn't say "only if you're the same race or are heterosexual."
Like Rachel Maddow said on one of her shows after the ruling, rights are rights. They shouldn't be voted on in the first place.
Good interview. Quick question. Was his wife killed during 9/11? I'm sorry, I no more believe the baloney surrounding 9/11 than I believe in Palin's faked pregnancy.
Indeed. When I hear conservatives whining and complaining about same sex marriage (I can't wait for the same sex moniker to fade and it just to be marriage) I want to scream. What could be more family values and conservative than a couple who loves each other and desires to wed?
With all the teabag hollering and hate in this country I had started to believe there were no sane judges left. Also--notice how FAUX tried to demonize Olsen by showing the photo of Rob Reiner (boogeyman liberal-who I love). Olsen slapped Wallace good with honesty, passion and the law.
Jeez, FAUX is sleazy. But isn't real freedom grand!?
Anonymous at 2:05. Did you listen to what he said in the video? The Bill of Rights trumps any popular vote of the people. You can't vote to take away someone's basic rights and the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right.
Anon 2:05, The Bill of Rights protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority. Do you believe a state could pass a ballot measure to deny the rights of Black people to vote? Could the majority of people in a state vote to outlaw people from practicing Catholicism? When it comes to constitutional rights, it doesn't matter what the majority is for or against.
As Ted stated in this interview 7 million people in California voted that you could discriminate against minorities and say they cannot buy your home simply based upon their race. This was overturned by the USSC as it was unconstitutional. The judge is simply saying the same thing -- prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Anonynous 2:05 we would still have black slaves, women would have no vote and not be allowed to own property or money - if the "will of the people" had not been overriden.
There are times when the people do not agree with the Consititution's ideals. That why it is binding law. That is exactly why the people who wrote the document made those ideals the supreme law that all men are created equal under that document.
"But I find it disturbing that one person can override the will of the many. If it would have been a court case that was superseded by this judge's decision that is one thing, but when it is something that was on the ballot and people voted on it and the majority were against it is something else." --------------------------------
The majority cannot violate other's rights no matter what.
In the January 9, 2010 edition of Newsweek, Ted Olson wrote an amazing piece called "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." I find it very difficult to imagine anyone, no matter his or her political persuasion, could read that article and remain opposed to gay marriage.
And to Anonymous at 2:05: don't be disturbed by the fact that our judiciary reviews legislation to determine whether or not it is unconstitutional . . . be comforted by it! It is the judiciary in this country that ensures the constitutional rights of the minority will not be trampled upon by the majority.
Just because a law is the will of the majority doesn't make it right . . . or constitutional, ie. although the majority of Americans would like Sarah Palin to shut it, a law making it illegal for her to post to her beloved Facebook page would still be unconstitutional!
All the more remarkable as Olson is a dyed in the wool Conservative. Was Solicitor General under Bush and a partner in the pro-Bush (and pro-McCain)Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Law Firm. A founding member of the Federalist Society, to boot.
For Anonymous @ 2:05 PM - Please go back and listen to the questions Chris Wallace the sleaze [can't stand him or his smug smile as he 'oh so politely' badgers Ted Olson] but you should listen very closely and carefully to Ted Olson's answers [he is giving you your answer] because Ted is stating the answer to your questions asked in your post - about 9 million people already voted on the issue, but the judge can overrule their votes because the judge realized that any minority cannot be left out of a decision. All those 9 million had their say, but they were voting for a ruling AGAINST a minority and that cannot be due to a minority being hindered when our Bill of Rights prevents minorities to left behind or out of an issue whom all other citizens are guaranteed to all citizens. The Bill of Rights provides that all people are created the same and therefore have the same rights, not just certain people.
I am thrilled that this case was heard and that Judge Vaughn made his decision based solely on Constitution and Bill of Rights so that others can no longer segregate against minorities even the minorities they don't like, [i.e. LGBT's are a hated minority where many straight people despise them because they are different]. It's wonderful for the LGBT community to have the same or equal rights as we all have.
As hard as he tried Chris Wallace could not get the Honorable Judge to waver from his constitutional convictions or drink the scary gay koolaid. I love it. People get married for various reasons; some marry and don't file taxes as a married couple because it's financially detrimental. The one time I was married we did secular vows because both of us were raised atheist. We married for lust and it didn't last long. But hey, everyone should be allowed to test the marriage waters as they see fit.
You're a hundred percent right on this one, Gryphen. It was an amazing interview and should go viral.
Anonymous 2:05, when anyone prefaces their opinion with "Before you start calling me a homophobe (snip) "I could not care less if someone wants to marry their cat" just doesn't cut it. Comparing a human being who loves another human being and wants their constitutional right to marry be honored to beastiality is a bit over the top.
Bringing animals into the equation kind of negates whatever point you're trying convince people your're sincere in not being homophobic. Nice try, though ;)
2:05, you didn't listen very carefully to the interview, or you'd already have your answer.
for one, see the 14th amendment.
second, you are confusing personal values with rights of CITIZENS. you cannot deny people RIGHTS AS CITIZENS just because it goes against your values.
As such, all citizens should be able to be married by the STATE. However, because churches are based on religious values, it would be appropriate for a church to deny marriages that go against their values. HOWEVER, at that point, the church should, and probably would, forgo tax-free status.
Re: Kagan's answer that there is no federal right to same sex marriage. Actually, it isn't just that this question hasn't gone before the Supremes... it's because (and Ted Olsen even said this) there is no SEPARATE right to same sex marriage. There is only ONE right to marriage in all its permutations.
I am not calling you a homophobe but one can not marry their cat. Marriage is between two consenting adults. Why bring up an animal? A common theme when people argue against gay marriage. The majority once believed in slavery and interracial marriage was wrong. Should we have voted on that and let it stand?
While I currently identify with the Democratic party, I have been a conservative for most of my life. I believe in smaller government, including smaller invasion of government into the lives of its people. To me, Olson's statements show what the conservatives *should* adhere to. Denying rights and excluding individuals has sadly become part of the Republican agenda.
I'm surprised to run through the comments here and not come across the stupid argument I keep hearing about how allowing gay marriage will mean taxpayers have to pay for the employee benefits for the "spouse" when one of them gets a job.
Firstly, that's such a laugh, as all the gays I know, have better jobs--both they and their partners--than the straight people I know, and pay way more taxes than the Clems and BillyBoy JoeBob types who fear gays so much.
But even more illogical, is how John Stewart pointed out that such reasoning would indicate that employers should only hire SINGLE people...making the best qualifications for getting hired that you are butt ugly, exhibit atrocious personal hygeine, and have a disagreeable personality.
Before you start calling me a homophobe, I would like to state that I do not oppose gay marriage and could not care less if someone wants to marry their cat. To each their own. Who people love is their business and no one has any right to say who they should fall in love with.
ReplyDeleteBut I find it disturbing that one person can override the will of the many. If it would have been a court case that was superseded by this judge's decision that is one thing, but when it is something that was on the ballot and people voted on it and the majority were against it is something else.
Nicely done! Chris Wallace keeps trying to ask him why 7 million voters' voices should be ignored and Ted very patiently keeps reminding Chris that it's in the Constitution that EVERYONE has the fundamental right to be married. It doesn't say "only if you're the same race or are heterosexual."
ReplyDeleteLike Rachel Maddow said on one of her shows after the ruling, rights are rights. They shouldn't be voted on in the first place.
Good interview. Quick question. Was his wife killed during 9/11? I'm sorry, I no more believe the baloney surrounding 9/11 than I believe in Palin's faked pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteGreat explanation!
ReplyDeleteBut what is it with Fox and fireplaces?
Don't forget to vote at the poll over at Fox either. 70% plus think Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/
Agree. Doing my part.
ReplyDeleteYou are SO RIGHT -- a fantastic Home Run!!
ReplyDeleteChris Wallace kept trying to interrupt, but Ted Olson got his message out any way, and then apologized for interrupting Wallace (which he never did).
A big 'high-five' for Ted Olson -- Yes, this should certainly go viral.
Thanks for the share.
BJF
Judicial activism = when people don't like your decision! LOL! This guy is fantastic!
ReplyDeleteWow. That's the best thing I ever heard come out of that wretched network. I'm surprised Fox actually aired it.
ReplyDeleteABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL!
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this Gryphen.
Indeed. When I hear conservatives whining and complaining about same sex marriage (I can't wait for the same sex moniker to fade and it just to be marriage) I want to scream. What could be more family values and conservative than a couple who loves each other and desires to wed?
With all the teabag hollering and hate in this country I had started to believe there were no sane judges left. Also--notice how FAUX tried to demonize Olsen by showing the photo of Rob Reiner (boogeyman liberal-who I love). Olsen slapped Wallace good with honesty, passion and the law.
Jeez, FAUX is sleazy.
But isn't real freedom grand!?
Anonymous at 2:05. Did you listen to what he said in the video? The Bill of Rights trumps any popular vote of the people. You can't vote to take away someone's basic rights and the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is a fundamental right.
ReplyDeleteIrishgirl, yes, Barbara Olson was a passenger on one of the planes on 9/11.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:05,
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority. Do you believe a state could pass a ballot measure to deny the rights of Black people to vote? Could the majority of people in a state vote to outlaw people from practicing Catholicism? When it comes to constitutional rights, it doesn't matter what the majority is for or against.
Anon 2:05
ReplyDeleteAs Ted stated in this interview 7 million people in California voted that you could discriminate against minorities and say they cannot buy your home simply based upon their race. This was overturned by the USSC as it was unconstitutional. The judge is simply saying the same thing -- prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Irishgirl -
ReplyDeleteHis wife Barbara was on American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
In a sad coincidence, Ted Olson's birthday is also 9/11 (source: Wikipedia)
The video would be more enlightening with audio.
ReplyDeleteAnonynous 2:05 we would still have black slaves, women would have no vote and not be allowed to own property or money - if the "will of the people" had not been overriden.
There are times when the people do not agree with the Consititution's ideals. That why it is binding law. That is exactly why the people who wrote the document made those ideals the supreme law that all men are created equal under that document.
"But I find it disturbing that one person can override the will of the many. If it would have been a court case that was superseded by this judge's decision that is one thing, but when it is something that was on the ballot and people voted on it and the majority were against it is something else."
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
The majority cannot violate other's rights no matter what.
Irish girl
ReplyDeleteYes I believe it was Olsen's wife.
In the January 9, 2010 edition of Newsweek, Ted Olson wrote an amazing piece called "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." I find it very difficult to imagine anyone, no matter his or her political persuasion, could read that article and remain opposed to gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd to Anonymous at 2:05: don't be disturbed by the fact that our judiciary reviews legislation to determine whether or not it is unconstitutional . . . be comforted by it! It is the judiciary in this country that ensures the constitutional rights of the minority will not be trampled upon by the majority.
Just because a law is the will of the majority doesn't make it right . . . or constitutional, ie. although the majority of Americans would like Sarah Palin to shut it, a law making it illegal for her to post to her beloved Facebook page would still be unconstitutional!
Real conservatism versus the conservatism of mindless dogmatic religiosity.
ReplyDeleteAll the more remarkable as Olson is a dyed in the wool Conservative. Was Solicitor General under Bush and a partner in the pro-Bush (and pro-McCain)Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Law Firm. A founding member of the Federalist Society, to boot.
ReplyDeleteMicMac
"In a sad coincidence, Ted Olson's birthday is also 9/11"
ReplyDeleteBoy that's a sucky birthday.
PS, I'm the "Good" Anonymous.
For Anonymous @ 2:05 PM - Please go back and listen to the questions Chris Wallace the sleaze [can't stand him or his smug smile as he 'oh so politely' badgers Ted Olson] but you should listen very closely and carefully to Ted Olson's answers [he is giving you your answer] because Ted is stating the answer to your questions asked in your post - about 9 million people already voted on the issue, but the judge can overrule their votes because the judge realized that any minority cannot be left out of a decision. All those 9 million had their say, but they were voting for a ruling AGAINST a minority and that cannot be due to a minority being hindered when our Bill of Rights prevents minorities to left behind or out of an issue whom all other citizens are guaranteed to all citizens. The Bill of Rights provides that all people are created the same and therefore have the same rights, not just certain people.
ReplyDeleteI am thrilled that this case was heard and that Judge Vaughn made his decision based solely on Constitution and Bill of Rights so that others can no longer segregate against minorities even the minorities they don't like, [i.e. LGBT's are a hated minority where many straight people despise them because they are different]. It's wonderful for the LGBT community to have the same or equal rights as we all have.
Mr. Olson explained it in such a simple, easy-to-understand way that even a second grader (or, hopefully, a Republican) can understand it.
ReplyDeleteAs hard as he tried Chris Wallace could not get the Honorable Judge to waver from his constitutional convictions or drink the scary gay koolaid. I love it. People get married for various reasons; some marry and don't file taxes as a married couple because it's financially detrimental. The one time I was married we did secular vows because both of us were raised atheist. We married for lust and it didn't last long. But hey, everyone should be allowed to test the marriage waters as they see fit.
ReplyDeleteYou're a hundred percent right on this one, Gryphen. It was an amazing interview and should go viral.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2:05, when anyone prefaces their opinion with "Before you start calling me a homophobe (snip) "I could not care less if someone wants to marry their cat" just doesn't cut it.
Comparing a human being who loves another human being and wants their constitutional right to marry be honored to beastiality is a bit over the top.
Bringing animals into the equation kind of negates whatever point you're trying convince people your're sincere in not being homophobic. Nice try, though ;)
@Anon., 2:05pm
ReplyDeleteBut I find it disturbing that one person can override the will of the many.
And I find it disturbing that the National Organization of Marriage can't prove how exactly same sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage.
I want to marry this man!
ReplyDelete2:05, you didn't listen very carefully to the interview, or you'd already have your answer.
ReplyDeletefor one, see the 14th amendment.
second, you are confusing personal values with rights of CITIZENS. you cannot deny people RIGHTS AS CITIZENS just because it goes against your values.
As such, all citizens should be able to be married by the STATE. However, because churches are based on religious values, it would be appropriate for a church to deny marriages that go against their values. HOWEVER, at that point, the church should, and probably would, forgo tax-free status.
Re: Kagan's answer that there is no federal right to same sex marriage. Actually, it isn't just that this question hasn't gone before the Supremes... it's because (and Ted Olsen even said this) there is no SEPARATE right to same sex marriage. There is only ONE right to marriage in all its permutations.
ReplyDeleteHey, will someone send a tweet to Palin telling her WE LOVE OUR FREEDOMS! HOPE YOU LOVE OUR FREEDOMS TOO!
ReplyDeleteEunice, you said it sister!
ReplyDeleteI am not calling you a homophobe but one can not marry their cat. Marriage is between two consenting adults. Why bring up an animal? A common theme when people argue against gay marriage. The majority once believed in slavery and interracial marriage was wrong. Should we have voted on that and let it stand?
ReplyDeleteIt's sad when a conservative Republican asshole like Ted Olson is more supportive of gay marriage than a Democratic president like Barack Obama is.
ReplyDeleteWhile I currently identify with the Democratic party, I have been a conservative for most of my life. I believe in smaller government, including smaller invasion of government into the lives of its people. To me, Olson's statements show what the conservatives *should* adhere to. Denying rights and excluding individuals has sadly become part of the Republican agenda.
ReplyDeleteJustice Kagan: "There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage."
ReplyDeleteJudge Walker is gay.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised to run through the comments here and not come across the stupid argument I keep hearing about how allowing gay marriage will mean taxpayers have to pay for the employee benefits for the "spouse" when one of them gets a job.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, that's such a laugh, as all the gays I know, have better jobs--both they and their partners--than the straight people I know, and pay way more taxes than the Clems and BillyBoy JoeBob types who fear gays so much.
But even more illogical, is how John Stewart pointed out that such reasoning would indicate that employers should only hire SINGLE people...making the best qualifications for getting hired that you are butt ugly, exhibit atrocious personal hygeine, and have a disagreeable personality.
"Hey, Stinky...get over here...you're HIRED!"
Wonderful! He hit everything. Thomas J and John A applaud him. And for once, they can stop spinning- for a while.
ReplyDeleteApparently he is gay. And a double Right-Wing Conservative nominee to the courts- first Reagan, then Bush, Sr.
ReplyDeleteVaughn R. Walker - Wikipedia, look him up, it is a fascinating background.
So now we have two formidable, undeniably Right-Wing Conservatives going to bat for gay marriage.
It's A Wonderful World.
MicMac