AMERICAblog: Bush Solicitor General, Ted Olson, explains why he's now for gay marriage
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
I wonder if Ted Olson ever wonders "what if" when he thinks about Bush with his boots up at the ranch in Crawford telling his NIE briefer, "Okay!!! You covered your ass!!!" when he was told "Osama hell bent on attacking within the U.S!" ???
I was there at the Supreme Court during Bush vs. Gore and joined the massive crowd in vigorously BOOING Olson when he marched out of the court after arguing to end the vote counting in Florida. He seemed quite smug and pleased with himself...
JamesR
· 6 months ago
If Bush had been paying attention then Olson's WIFE (and everybody else on those planes and buildings) would not have died. Coincidentally enough on his birthday. That's gotta hurt after a while. I am sure he's "what if'd" a lot. Karma can be quite harsh sometimes.
nathan
· 6 months ago
I hate to sound paranoid, BUT is there any chance that this suit is being brought at this time in an attempt to APPEAR like they are trying to bring equal human rights to gay people when in acutality they know that the current court is more than likely not favorable to this issue at the present time? Mr. Barney Frank has spoken publicly that he doesnt think the current court would rule favorably...i think he would know....
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
If Republicans are trying to get to the left of Democrats now they determined this is a losing issue, Obama could always be a FIERCE ADVOCATE for us to prevent "the gays" from being enticed over to the other side. The Obama administration could stop treating us like lepers or "that crazy embarassing Aunt."
FatRat
· 6 months ago
Had the same idea of the GOP trying to "out left", the left. They'll all be singing "The Time Warp" lyrics soon, "It's just a jump to the left." lol
Ben Dover
· 6 months ago
I'm still waiting for the "leadership" that Barry promised back in the day when he was so eager to solicit our cash donations to further his political career.
Remember this?
QUOTE: "It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS in this nation. And I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." – Barack Obama, February 2008
Whatever happened to that guy?
fredndallas
· 6 months ago
Thanks Ben for recounting that quote from then candidate Obama. I had forgotten the clarity of his "support" and it made me absolutely FURIOUS to read it now and see what a total con-job this was/is.
Despite what he said then, I truly believe that Barack Obama has a deep personal, emotional problem with GLBT people. He pandered to us during the election because it was all about getting for himself and because to do otherwise would have revealed and betrayed his "positioning" as a progressive -- plus perhaps to dodge us would have hit a little close to self-revealing homophobia home.
Look at the record since elected -- BO can only eek out a token here and a token there, probably psychologically motivated to cloak his true homophobia. And no sooner than he does, he consistently does something to lash back at us. Two recent examples are his choice of timing to announce his Supreme nominee, knowing he would totally dominate the news coverage and preempt visibility to the Prop 8 decision and the recent "scrubbing" of the official White House web site to neutralize support of gay equality. His press secretary's jerkish handling of questions related to gay equality are also quite revealing.
All and all, BO's pattern is not healthy behavior, particularly when compared to what he SAID to get for himself.
Somehow our community must shame Barack Obama personally about his homophobia which severely conflicts with his intellect. Our future equality could well depend on it. Your specific quote should be repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated -- widely publicized until it is indelible in the public consciousness and conclusively proves to BO that he IS accountable, despite now suddenly being "gay-shy".
PS: You've given us the date of the BO quote. Would you also post the location and your source so all of us will have total credibility in circulating it far and wide. Thanks.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
I'm still thinking it probably hurts to realize you helped select a Presidential administration who focused like laser beams on Republican pet social issues instead of the looming Osama bin Laden threat when the result was a dead wife... Just sayin'... I wonder what he thinks about all those ties between Bush's Arbusto and Salem bin Laden, and the actions taken after 9-11 when the Bush Admin shepherded all the Saudi bin Ladens out of our country? He must really hate that...
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
"The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote."
Ted Olsen. wow. How did the CA Supreme Court not come up with this?
Rob Mule
· 6 months ago
Maybe Barbara's death on 911 and the resulting change in their once popular social and media status within the B-way started Olsen on a path toward redemption???
Falconlights
· 6 months ago
I was thinking that myself, Citizzildent Dyspeptic. losing one's wife, especially in such a horrible way, might well be enough to send someone on a spritiual journey. It has happened before so it's not impossible that it has happened in the case of Olson.
I know many GLBTQ people do not trust Mr. Olsen. It is understandable--after all, Republicans have not historically been the friends of LGBTQ people. Still, not all Republicans are homophic. If Mr. Olsen has been homophobic in the past--I have no idea what his views, past or present, are in regards to LGBTQ people--perhaps the death of his wife in the attacks caused a change in him. I prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude--there is every chance that he will turn out to be sincere and there is a chance that the Supreme Court in Washington will rule in favour of marriage equality.
I wish that all the Democrats here (BTW I am not a Republican), would please inform us why BO has not lifted a finger to help us after he suggested that we could be part of "Change" as well. At least with Bush you knew where he stood on LGBTQ issues. Sure, his opinion sucked but he never played semantic games with us. Here we are, still waiting for a comment on the Prop H8 decision or DADT.
The last I have heard, people are still getting tossed out of the military under DADT--and these are not screw-ups who would be better out of the armed forces. In many cases these are people who are a credit to whatever branch of the military they are in, some of them are even decorated veterans. That makes absolutely NO difference to the neanderthal Talibangelists that run the US military. If you are LGBTQ, then you do not deserve a chance to serve your country, even if until the moment your orientation is recognised, that service has been honourable. Nope. Gotta make some troglodytes who are afraid some LGBtQ person will look at them and lust after them. It's ridiculous but that it how the homophobic mind operates ('ve run into this with homophobes and they always seem rather disappointed that I was not attracted to them). Get over yourselves! All LGBTQ people want is to serve their country honourably without lying about who and what they are. How would you like to have to lie about something so basic to you as who you love? LGBTQ are probably less likely to "flaunt" their oreintation than many staights. Interestingly, quite a number of retired officers back the revocation of DADT, because the military is far better off without it. Obama chooses simply to let it stand rather than risk anything politically by leading the fight to end it.
As for Prop H8, I've yet to hear anything from Obama about that either. But then this is a man who pandered to the Religious Right by inviting Rick Warren, a known homphobe, to give the invocation at the inauguration. This was a slap in the face of every LGBtQ person who voted for him. Bishop Gene Robinson was added to the festivities, but in a site away from where the inauguration was taking place. However, since he has said very little about GLbTQ issues, so I am not surprised that so far he's said nothing about the Prop H8 decision 9he may have said something in Los Angeles last evening, but if so, I haven't heard of it. When he starts doing things for LGBTQ Americans (as opposed to just talking about it), THAT will change that GLBTQ people can believe in.
Rob Mule
· 6 months ago
I can't imagine why Obama hasn't moved on Don't Ask Don't Tell...The Air Force Lt Col Rachael Maddow had on last week certainly presented himself as an outstanding example of why Mr. O should move on this one issue.
I still have faith however that Mr. O will come through for us as best he can when he can. I feel the criticism of the president here on this topic, in large part, has been very unfair. I've been pilloried for urging patience in this web space but I think my written record here underscores my political judgement and supports the correctness of my position.
Sidney
· 6 months ago
Appreciate your comments and I agree patience is a necessary part of moving forward. Nearly six months into his term, Obama's time has not run out, and I believe he will make a significant difference for gay marriage by the end of his first term. Time will tell.
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
...and John and Joe, no other blog is on this yet, that i can see...you've scooped this and it should be BIG! how interesting.
IT
· 6 months ago
Has it occurred to you that they are playing us? A defeat for gay rights at the federal level (likely given the makeup of the federal judiciary after years of Bush) would set the movement BACK. there is a reason that the No-on-Prop8 did not bring up equal protection under the US Constitution. we may be a suspect class in CA, but federally WE HAVE NOTHING.
I do not trust this.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
It occurred to me for .1 seconds. Sorry, but lawyers don't take cases in order to throw them. They'd lose their licenses over such a thing. Olson has already done incredibly damage to the anti-gay forces by taking this case, and by making the kind of public comments he's making. If he were to ultimately reveal he was just kidding, he'd be disbarred and disgraced. I'm sorry, but it's just not plausible. This is the real deal.
dula
· 6 months ago
I for one would like the US Supreme Court to decide once and for all...at least I will know where I stand in this backward nation.
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
me too. i think the federal equal protection argument is our best hope.
John from Boston
· 6 months ago
I totally agree. This case will most certainly make bad law and screw us. They don't have a good federal constitutional angle here, as we don't have anything beyond rational basis status.
I am sure that Lambda, GLAD and the other folks who have an actual, coordinated legal strategy are not pleased by this. GLAD, for example, has filed a very strategic case against the Section 3 of DOMA, the federal prohibition, and not targeted the state piece.
Good for Ted Olson for having a change of heart, if it is sincere, but this litigation is fraught with peril.
John from Boston
· 6 months ago
A victory in this case would require the Supreme Court to elevate sexual orientation to a "suspect class" for equal protection purposes, something that's never been done and is currently highly unlikely.
terrya
· 6 months ago
I wonder if I'm still blocked from posting. I was earlier.
John Aravosis
· 6 months ago
It's a mistake, dealing with the comments company to fix it now, sorry about that.
terrya
· 6 months ago
Thanks, John.
dula
· 6 months ago
Amazing! What with only 21% of Americans now Republican, only Democrats could mess it up. I for one will never vote for the lesser of two evils again. It's Green Party for me.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 6 months ago
i'm not seeing the distinction very clearly. congressmembers also say whatever their clients (special interests) tell them to say.
JDF
· 6 months ago
I'm not a republican, but I must say, gay people need to carefully consider cause and effect with respect to political parties and gay rights. A majority of US states overturned sodomy laws during periods of Republican presidency. The Supreme Court through out sodomy laws under Bush. Gay Marriage - Massachusetts and California - was in place for the first time during a Republican Presidency. What did we get under a Democratic presidency? Defense of Marriage Act. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Proposition 8 Upheld. Gay Marriage in several more states. IMHO, Gays have done much better under Republican administrations than Democratic ones, and I'm not sure why, for all the anti-gay rhetoric of Republicans and the gay-friendly rhetoric of Democrats.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 6 months ago
don't forget that the Lawrence v Texas case was swung by the only moderate republican on the court at the time, namely O'Connor and she used all kinds of weasel words in her separate opinion, refusing to admit that the Hardwick decision was flawed.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
We got DADT and DOMA thanks to Republican pressure on Clinton, and Newt's stupid neocon revolution.
We also almost got an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, and a host of other stupidities thanks to conservatives.
Conservative Republicans are still the nutjobs attacking gays every day, the ones out there signing petitions to keep us down, spewing hate speech on tv..
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
THANK YOU!
Also, we got DADT because that bigot traitor Senator Sam Nunn decided to host a presser about how "awful" it would be for gays to be on submarines. I remember it because I was a gay man preaching Protestant services on a submarine in the North Atlantic at the time because none of the straight guys would step up and hold Protestant services. I know because I asked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM because I didn't want to be asked later, "If you knew you were gay, why did you preach Protestant services?" In fact, when I was asked to preach I balked and when asked why by my XO I claimed, "Uhhhh, I 'party too much!'" LOL
JDF
· 6 months ago
You can write "almost" and "Clinton was pressured" and all manner of excuses, but he fact remains: gays have gained and lost rights under both democratic and republican administrations. On the whole, especially at the national level, they have lost more rights under democratic administrations than republican administrations, and gained more rights under republican administrations than under democratic ones. In fact, I can't think of any national rights (those not at the state level) that they gained under ever under democratic administrations - any clarification. At the state level, gays have gained more rights during periods of republican federal administration than under democratic federal administration. It's just a fascinating correlation. It's easy to see- look up in Wikipedia when sodomy laws were overturned, and link that to which president was in office. Likewise, how can you call Clinton "pro-gay" when he signs DOMA, and then Bush is "anti-gay" but he states that he will not "kick gays", and weakly supports a fake "constitutional amendment" against gay marriage (and I thought republicans were against abortions).
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Yea, well... I keep forgetting how wonderful the Republican party is when it comes to voting for civil rights for LGBT. My bad...
cantyoureadthesigns
· 6 months ago
It's generally completely meaningless what party is in power when a SCOTUS decison regarding gay rights is issued.
caphillprof
· 6 months ago
xxx
RitornaVincitor
· 6 months ago
John, I'm happy Olson has seen the light if that can be trusted, and I'll take your word that it can. I totally agree with his comparison of denying gay people the right to marry to denying interracial couples the right to marry. But here's the catch. The majority of the US Supreme Court Justices don't see it that way. They see race as something people don't choose, and therefore apply equal protection to citizens in racial cases. But the majority of the Justices believe that being gay is a choice, and they don't apply equal protection to gay people in the same way as they do to other minorities. I'm very worried about this case going before the US Supreme Court. We could be royaly screwed. I'm delighted that you believe the time for gay marriage has arrived. So do I. I just worry that the Supreme Court hasn't arrived yet.
Christie Keith
· 6 months ago
I don't know why they get hung up on "choice" -- religion is a choice, and that's protected...
tlsintx
· 6 months ago
exactly.
RitornaVincitor
· 6 months ago
Hi Christie. I think religion is the reason some of them get hung up on choice. For some of them if being gay is not a choice, then their religious beliefs are challenged.
NYatty
· 6 months ago
O/t, but what is up with the incredibly annoying video/audio embedded ads? It's hard to surf at work when a voice starts talking about dishwashing liquid each time you load the site. can you disable these please so they do not play audio automatically?!? today's the first time I've seen these.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Helpful Hint: I located a little "sound icon" you can click on in the upper right hand corner of the ad that turns the ad's sound off. I'm not at work but I was like, what effing ad has discovered how to embed SOUND?!!? LOL!
Mini Clover
· 6 months ago
If you're using Firefox you can use the NoScript extension to block objects... wonderful way to look at your fav websites without all the stupid ads and scripts.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
"Democratic president and far too many of his administration are treating gays and their civil rights like some kind of crazy Aunt you don't talk about in polite company because she's just so embarrassing."
Perfect metaphor!
LM
· 6 months ago
Article's great. HATE the "interactive advertisement" with its 80 decible soundtrack. Please don't do that!
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Helpful Hint: There is a sound icon on the "new ads" that will turn off the sound. Click it and it will go back to showing silent advertising...
Ksue
· 6 months ago
Thank you for that helpful hint.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
You bet!
chuck
· 6 months ago
I think it's time for bisexuals to demand equal rights. They deserve the right to be married to both a man and a woman. Then maybe we can get polygamy legal.
nicho
· 6 months ago
Maybe it's time that narcissistic dickheads had the right to marry themselves. Then, they could go fuck themselves. Go for it.
cowboyneok
· 6 months ago
Go for it... knock yourselves out. Better yet, move yourself to Utah. Polygamy exists there... just ask around. Start your own cult because religious cults exist all over the U.S. that do stuff like that. Just don't try to tell me what to do or steal my rights.
Jasper
· 6 months ago
Oh you went and mentioned polygamy, the infraction that gay-haters never talk about.
serge
· 6 months ago
I thinks it's ironic that he's teamed up with David Boies , who, if I'm not mistaken, was the Supreme Ct attorney for Al Gore...only in America.
Whatever it means, it's good. Boies is supposed to be a fantastic trial lawyer.
lilybart
· 6 months ago
WOW, just WOW.
The fight is now over in CA.
Olson is their favorite lawyer and his wife died on 9/11.
This is wonderful news.
stan
· 6 months ago
However, this could be a well calculated ruse to get the issue before a conservative Supreme Court. I believe it's Scalia who's already gone on record as saying there is no "right" to same-sex marriage; the Constitution grants no such rights. Therefore, if the SC says no (which they more than likely would), where do you go from there?
John Simpson
· 6 months ago
to the streets.......
Meldrick
· 6 months ago
Stan, I fear you're absolutely right. I don't want to ascribe a conspiracy or ulterior motive to *every*thing, but this guy, taking this case, at this time? It's fishy.
Jason Eckelman
· 6 months ago
Um, not to sound like a jerk about this, but this is typical Republican rat-fucking. I don't believe for a second Ted Olsen gives a shit about gay people. He's just trying to drive a wedge between Obama and gay-rights folks, and sabotage Obama's administration. I'm NOT defending Obama (his lack of action - or interest - on this, and that of the reprehensible Robert Gibbs, has been apalling) but let's not pretend that Ted Olsen filing this suit somehow means the Conservatives are coming around. Perspective, please.
Nardwilly
· 6 months ago
He is a lawyer, not a politician. Most peole do not know him or his dead wife. The view on homsexual mattiage is personal. Most people are against it. The guy is still in the GOP. There are many affluent homosexual republicans who believe in the GOP.
Gridlock
· 6 months ago
Actually according to recent polls, more people are for it. Just FYI.
NAVDOC3rdMAR
· 6 months ago
I was like "Wow" ted olson talking sense about gay marriage? Now, you guys got me suspicious about it. It does seem like the kind of underhanded, cowardly thing the repugs would do. I don't know but, he did lay out a great argument and he was quoted. I guess we will see. SEMPER FI!
earthworx
· 6 months ago
Ted Olson is maybe just paying penance. As you said, he was instrumental in getting Bush the presidency; and it indirectly lead to the death of his wife. She was a passenger in one of the 9-11 planes.
Karen
· 6 months ago
I'm impressed. That should make for interesting meetings. I'm not surprised, though. Ted Olson may be a conservative but he's always been a thoughtful one. Maybe this issue separates him from the social fascists in the religious right but it doesn't separate him from Constitutionalists who are working out civil rights issues seriously.
DaveinNorthridge
· 6 months ago
I'm sorry. I'm going to need a LOT more reassurance to take this at face value. Maybe we should try to figure out what David Boies has said about gay marriage since it was made legal in Massachusetts before we decode that a serious leopard has changed his spots.
I'm thinking this is supposed to be the nail in the coffin of gay marriage, since it's likely to reach the Supreme Court before the challenge to DOMA (now in federal court) does.
What grandstanding from a couple of attention whore, Johnny-come-latelys.
Every single LGBT legal advocacy group that has been *carefully laying the groundwork* for their cases across YEARS of preparation is opposed to making a federal case now: Lambda Legal National Center for Lesbian Rights GLAD-Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders ACLU
Along with national LGBT orgs: National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Human Rights Campaign GLAAD Freedom to Marry
I hope Mr. Olson will also work to keep the militant gay movement from the suing the Catholic Church to force them to perform gay weddings.
I had individuals state that once Prop 8 was defeated the Catholic Church would be forced to perform gay weddings or loose their tax status. That is what prompted me to support Prop 8. What assurance will Mr. Olson give the churches, priests and clergy who do not want to perform gay weddings?
Chris
· 6 months ago
No U.S. church has EVER been forced to marry any couple. Churches can (and do) refuse to marry men and women of different faiths or those who've been divorced. Instituting a method for same sex couples to legally marry has nothing to do with individual churches or religions right to refuse to perform those ceremonies.
EchoMark
· 6 months ago
Wow, you had individuals state that? Nice evidence; lawyer much?
Let's keep to the actual discussion at hand: CIVIL MARRIAGE
Even straight people don't need to go to a bigoted church to get LEGALLY married. But let's not forget, there are umpteen churches and clergymembers out there that have been happily marrying gay couples for YEARS.
jason
· 6 months ago
Yes all those Christian churches who refused to perform Muslim or Jewish wedding ceremonies were FORCED to do it anyway against their beliefs!! Outrageous!!!! Wait...that's never happened. My bad.
John Simpson
· 6 months ago
you're kidding right? YOu know that rethuglican talking point is as valid as believing that the rethuglican party has a soul.
kladinvt
· 6 months ago
Any self-proclaimed religious organization that enjoys tax-exempt status (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints) and involves itself DIRECTLY in politics should lose their tax-exempt status. Self-proclaimed religious organizations should not receive tax breaks on the backs of American taxpayers who they vociferiously oppose. That is like asking a Jew to subsidized the Nazi party! Besides, I know of NO gay couples who plan to FORCE some hateful church to perform their weddings. I'm doing mine at my home with friends & family in attendance. No need for some wizard or magician to be involved!
MNPorter
· 6 months ago
When your political party has a popularity rating down in the mid-20th percentile, you reach out to as many people as you can.
Doesn't mean you're going to do a damned thing for them if you ever get back in power. viz. Obama, Barack
JamesR
· 6 months ago
Oddly enough on the face of it I trust this way more coming from a conservative source rather than 'liberal' or Democratic source. The "Conservatives" whether they be the neo-con neo-fascist types or the older traditional small-government get-out-of-my-face types al are coming from a place of principle, whether you like it or not. Whether those principles are coherent or contradictory or not. Unfortunately most Democrats are not, and most all of them look like they are not. This is the real secret of most of the Republican successes - especially the close ones. The public trusts folk who are coming from principles even if they are ones the public has problems with. Whether Olson saw the proverbial light or saw where Starr et al were going and figured one of his oxen were in danger of being gored (unintentional pun) who can say - but his legal words and reasoning I tend to believe. FINALLY the traditional conservative Republicans have had enough with the totalitarian bent of the talibangicals in their midst. Took them long enough.
Democrats, 'Liberals,' Progressives - NOW is your chance. Time and Tide in the affairs of Men = now. Step up or get stepped on.
Dusty
· 6 months ago
So, the republicans want to rebuild their party starting with the gay community. Bush also wanted to add to their party by winning over Latinos. The first thing he did after becoming president was visit Mexico and told their president to send us your poor. But the party rebelled. Lou Dobbs and others repubs were not happy.
I guess it all comes down to the American people (where it should be). I hope the time is now for the gay community.
Barb
· 6 months ago
But do we want our marriage issue to reach the current Supreme Court? I know that it's always a matter of "Not yet, not now," and we want to take this forward at some point, and it's frustrating, especially, that DOMA exists. But we need another vote!
cantyoureadthesigns
· 6 months ago
There's a far better chance of getting Congress to repeal DOMA than getting the SCOTUS to toss DOMA out.
John Simpson
· 6 months ago
When then? When Roberts dies? I'l be dead before him.
Shawn
· 6 months ago
I don't care why these Republicans want to help us. I don't. I just want this to be over. I want to be an American. Fully and freely American for the first time in my 50 years in this country. I've assumed I would always feel like a native-born foreigner, but now I'm beginning to think maybe not. I was devastated when Proposition 8 was passed and then President-Elect Obama put Rick Warren front and center at his inauguration. But then came Iowa. Iowa of all places. And Maine. And now I'm beginning to think that reason and fairness may out. And I may feel American for the first time in a lifetime in this country.
Cantagallo
· 6 months ago
While it is more than understandable that folks who are just waiting to get on with their lives, marry and work with equal protection under the law, are disappointed and impatient with the current situation, however, I would like to counsel a bit of caution. Both DADT and DOMA are the law and new legislation is required to change this. We have just had eight years of a president who decided which laws needed to be obeyed and which could be ignored and that was not a good precedent. Likewise an executive order would not be a good fix as it would not really de-institutionalize discrimination. Legislation is a slow process and support must be built up. That is happening now organically all over the country. I know that the president's silence is maddening but there are positive indicators everywhere so lets give the guy a bit more than four months to fix the huge mess we are in. I really believe change is coming. I hope I am right. (A bit too Pollyanna-ish?)
zeq2m9
· 6 months ago
This isn't the first state to ban gay marriage. States have a right to decide laws for themselves. That IS the way the U.S. constitution was written. I don't understand why when it happens in California all the sudden people are running to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_decision...
jason
· 6 months ago
14th Amendment. Equal protection clause. Read it.
John Simpson
· 6 months ago
It's very simple my dea, it violates the United States Constitution. Clear enough now?
jdblue82
· 6 months ago
Hmmm... I seem to recall something in my civics classes about states barring mixed race marriage. I don't think that went well for them in the end though.
In twenty years, you'll probably be eating some crow.
R. Katz
· 6 months ago
Great article John. You go man! You are absolutely on target about Pres. Obama. The question is this: does he truly believe that gay marriage would adversely effect his political ambitions? Or is he personally averse to homosexuals marrying? If the first is true than thre remains some hope. If it's the latter than he must be educated to the fact that gay marriage has had no negative impact on our society and how positive it is for the families of gay people. He has two daughters. He and Michele should be educating them to the importance of equal rights in every respect for all people. It is heartening that Steve Schmidt and Ted Olsen, staunch conservatives, are standing up for equal marriage rights for BGLT people. Let's hope their views are far reaching.
middleagedmessenger
· 6 months ago
Here we have a guy Ted Olson - who many on the Left have loved to hate for many years - COMING OVER TO YOUR SIDE on a key issue, gay rights, and not just verbally, but with action: He's part of the legal team that may secure the right of gays nationwide to marry . And what response does he get, from many of you?
Disgusting insinuations that the death of Olsen's wife was some soft of karmic payback, which idea is basically indistinguishable from "He had it comin'."
Has it occurred to any of you that you often display the kind of pure, unreasoning hate which you project upon your right-wing opponents?
mirth
· 6 months ago
You are so far off base in your interpretation of remarks here about Ted Olson and the tragic death of his wife.
It's no wonder that we point our fingers at you freaks and laugh...with disgust.
JamesR
· 6 months ago
My post was the only one that dealt with Olson's wife dying and the concept of Karma. Are you referring to me? Or that I demonstrated "unreasoning hate??" If so next time it might be more courteous to post the comment as a reply, if you truly wanted any feedback as to the motivations that would support or challenge your proposition.
The concept that Karma is some sort of "payback" or God's Revenge or some sort of 'justice' we can see is unfortunately common, and to the extent my post contributed to that impression I apologize. However, the use I made of it was within it's most bare definition, which is that of cause and effect, and that as Olson was directly involved in the placement of Bush in power (cause,) then we ALL received an effect shortly, the death of his wife and thousands of others on September 11 directly because of the negligence of the person he helped put in power, Olson did participate in an act that demonstrated one aspect of the concept of Karma contained within a short span of his public life. Cause, effect, with an added personal touch that involved marriage and also it's benefits. At that simple level it fits the definition of Karma, and the most common one that of cause and effect.
Karma more often is thought to be observed in repeat cycles, not dramatic pairs of opposites. And there are all sorts of areas where Karma may be seen, and all sorts of theories and beliefs, there is personal evolutionary Karma usually pondered for the release from personal repeat cycles of undesired behavior - usually non-apparent to a casual observer - there is what is seen as national Karma, like what Sharon Stone stepped into whilst speculating about China's earthquakes, and there are isolated cases of what I would call 'Newtonian Karma' - where one can see Cause, and Effect woven into someone's life within short order.
I, the only one on this thread who used the word Karma, was observing the latter. I have no way of knowing how this might have parallels with any of what might be seen as Olson's personal Karma, that is not my business nor appropriate to speculate upon. However - this instance / these connected instances, as they are public (they affected us all,) are appropriate to observe publicly and combine philosophically, they ARE harsh, and they're full of irony on several levels.
Most people who use the word "karma" are probably not the same ones who use the concept of divine retribution and justice in a way that relishes what the perceived effects garner. They are usually not celebrating death and destruction as good and meet, but usually more observing the cautionary tale. The concept of God's revenge and or the enjoyment of a stranger's pain is not really compatible with the traditional concept(s) of Karma.
AND most people, especially on this blog, who use the word [your post possibly excepted,] know how the word is used and use it correctly. And they would gladly explain if asked, not told.
Telling people what they are saying, using terms like "YOUR SIDE" (there are in fact many sides represented in the threads on this blog, it is remarkable and usually civilized,) and whining about all the "hate" without contributing anything useful is, if I may be permitted yet another usage of the word, bad Karma.
RainbowPhoenix
· 6 months ago
I don't trust him farther than I can throw him. Even if he does have our interest at heart, it's just too risky to do it now. Sure it will take a long time to get there, but that still won't be enough time for Obama or the next (hopefully gay friendly) president to shift the court's political tilt. It took us almost thirty years to undo Bowers.
cardbbfan
· 6 months ago
I'm a lawyer in CA and when I read that Ted Olson is involved my immediate thought was that he is setting up a conservative route toward outlawing the 18,000 marriages the CA Supreme Court upheld yesterday. I hope I'm wrong and by all accounts thus far, I might be. I'll believe it when I see it.
New York, May 27, 2009 — In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back. The groups released a new publication, “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California.” This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.
Larry
· 6 months ago
Is this the right wing trying to poison the marriage equality movement by taking it to the Supreme Court too soon, so that it will lose? I woudn't put it past them. I would be very careful about having conservatives represent marriage equality in the courts. They could be trying to set up stare decicis - negative precedents - for future cases.
Paul H
· 6 months ago
The courts are merely upholding a law that the people voted for. That's what the courts are really supposed to do. The day they start making law from the bench is the day you no longer live in America.
Ed
· 6 months ago
So when the people vote to nail people to crosses for their religious beliefs or deny school lunches to some kids because they aren't Christian (or pick your reason...) the courts' job is to uphold that? It's the equal protection clause buddy. You can't give a civil right to one citizen (a hetero) and deny that same civil right to another ( a gay or lesbian) just because of genitalia.
tro
· 6 months ago
Religious liberty is explicitly protected in the FEDERAL constitution, neither the right to marry nor to be free of discrimination based on sexual orientation are. The Equal Protection Clause deprives unequal distribution of fundamental rights or classification based on suspect classifications. No one asked the California Supreme Court to consider the federal equal protection clause because no one wanted them to come up with a novel ruling that would likely be taken to the US supreme court. It is silly to not advance the best arguments and then whine when the best arguments are not adopted by the court.
Alex
· 6 months ago
WHy don't you try to put those two propositions on the ballot and see how many people care about them? Buddy!! Marriage touches the life of every person who believes in its sacredness. That is largely the African-American and Hispanic popularions. You pro-Gay whinner cannot accept that 2% of the population, again, mostly African-American and Hispanics decided to deny you what you call a "Civil Right." But, is it? Not according to the California Supreme Court. Goodness. The most radical court in the land didn't agree with you! You therefore must be REALLY wrong or uninformed!
jbrantow
· 6 months ago
Perhaps we should go to kentucky or arkansas and put slavery or segregation on the ballot.....a lot of closet racists would vote for those points....especially when the KKK starts to pour money into that campaign. Would you be happy to drink from a separate fountain or maybe be the property of some bigot. What? you wouldn't be happy........so then what you do....sounds like you would bend over and take it.
dawn
· 6 months ago
Paul, I hate to tell you this, but the courts are here to ensure that all laws follow our U.S. Constitution. It's called the check and balance system. Laws are found to be unconstitutional by the courts on a regular basis. That doesn't mean that judges are making laws from the bench, just making sure those laws follow our constitution. This protects all of us.
Shawn
· 6 months ago
Actually in all my government classes I've ever taken (high school and College), every single text book and every single teacher/professor has told us that the purpose of the court is to interpret the law. So, in plan English, they tell us what it means.
Joseph Crews
· 6 months ago
I am highly skeptical of the motive of Olsen and Boises. Do we need them? We can overturn Prop 8 in 2010 with a new proposition (Revision, not Amendment). All we need is to win little more than an additional 1 % of the vote (They lose 1%, we gain a little more than 1 %) The the victory is sealed in stone in California.
Why would we want a challenge in the unfriendly federal court system, and particularly at the US Supreme Court level? The SCOTUS is sure to vote against Marriage Equality for gays. Is this a Trojan Horse tactic?
sue
· 6 months ago
Ted Olsen lost his wife on 9/11. She was on the plane that hit the Pentagon. Maybe that experience has contributed to his change of heart about love and marriage.
James
· 6 months ago
I feel the doors opening for a change...
sfhuskybear
· 6 months ago
"I had individuals state that once Prop 8 was defeated the Catholic Church would be forced to perform gay weddings or loose their tax status" -- Bill that is an absolute lie. And it apparently worked on you. The rights of churches to marry whom they wish has never been on the table. No church has ever been sued for refusing to marry inter-faith couples, etc. The Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage equality specifically stated that churches would not be forced to marry same-sex couples if it was against their religious belief. The mormon/catholic coalition spent millions to spread this lie. And unfortunately, a lot of Californians fell for it.
Matthew Sallin
· 5 months ago
Don't forget that Schmidt and Olson are not elected officials and thus have less to lose than politicians like Obama by openly supporting equal marriage rights...
All Comments
I was there at the Supreme Court during Bush vs. Gore and joined the massive crowd in vigorously BOOING Olson when he marched out of the court after arguing to end the vote counting in Florida. He seemed quite smug and pleased with himself...
Remember this?
QUOTE: "It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS in this nation. And I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." – Barack Obama, February 2008
Whatever happened to that guy?
Despite what he said then, I truly believe that Barack Obama has a deep personal, emotional problem with GLBT people. He pandered to us during the election because it was all about getting for himself and because to do otherwise would have revealed and betrayed his "positioning" as a progressive -- plus perhaps to dodge us would have hit a little close to self-revealing homophobia home.
Look at the record since elected -- BO can only eek out a token here and a token there, probably psychologically motivated to cloak his true homophobia. And no sooner than he does, he consistently does something to lash back at us. Two recent examples are his choice of timing to announce his Supreme nominee, knowing he would totally dominate the news coverage and preempt visibility to the Prop 8 decision and the recent "scrubbing" of the official White House web site to neutralize support of gay equality. His press secretary's jerkish handling of questions related to gay equality are also quite revealing.
All and all, BO's pattern is not healthy behavior, particularly when compared to what he SAID to get for himself.
Somehow our community must shame Barack Obama personally about his homophobia which severely conflicts with his intellect. Our future equality could well depend on it. Your specific quote should be repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated -- widely publicized until it is indelible in the public consciousness and conclusively proves to BO that he IS accountable, despite now suddenly being "gay-shy".
Another great example is the Open Letter To Barack Obama from Lorri L. Jean: http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid8...
PS: You've given us the date of the BO quote. Would you also post the location and your source so all of us will have total credibility in circulating it far and wide. Thanks.
Ted Olsen. wow.
How did the CA Supreme Court not come up with this?
I know many GLBTQ people do not trust Mr. Olsen. It is understandable--after all, Republicans have not historically been the friends of LGBTQ people. Still, not all Republicans are homophic. If Mr. Olsen has been homophobic in the past--I have no idea what his views, past or present, are in regards to LGBTQ people--perhaps the death of his wife in the attacks caused a change in him. I prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude--there is every chance that he will turn out to be sincere and there is a chance that the Supreme Court in Washington will rule in favour of marriage equality.
I wish that all the Democrats here (BTW I am not a Republican), would please inform us why BO has not lifted a finger to help us after he suggested that we could be part of "Change" as well. At least with Bush you knew where he stood on LGBTQ issues. Sure, his opinion sucked but he never played semantic games with us. Here we are, still waiting for a comment on the Prop H8 decision or DADT.
The last I have heard, people are still getting tossed out of the military under DADT--and these are not screw-ups who would be better out of the armed forces. In many cases these are people who are a credit to whatever branch of the military they are in, some of them are even decorated veterans. That makes absolutely NO difference to the neanderthal Talibangelists that run the US military. If you are LGBTQ, then you do not deserve a chance to serve your country, even if until the moment your orientation is recognised, that service has been honourable. Nope. Gotta make some troglodytes who are afraid some LGBtQ person will look at them and lust after them. It's ridiculous but that it how the homophobic mind operates ('ve run into this with homophobes and they always seem rather disappointed that I was not attracted to them). Get over yourselves! All LGBTQ people want is to serve their country honourably without lying about who and what they are. How would you like to have to lie about something so basic to you as who you love? LGBTQ are probably less likely to "flaunt" their oreintation than many staights. Interestingly, quite a number of retired officers back the revocation of DADT, because the military is far better off without it. Obama chooses simply to let it stand rather than risk anything politically by leading the fight to end it.
As for Prop H8, I've yet to hear anything from Obama about that either. But then this is a man who pandered to the Religious Right by inviting Rick Warren, a known homphobe, to give the invocation at the inauguration. This was a slap in the face of every LGBtQ person who voted for him. Bishop Gene Robinson was added to the festivities, but in a site away from where the inauguration was taking place. However, since he has said very little about GLbTQ issues, so I am not surprised that so far he's said nothing about the Prop H8 decision 9he may have said something in Los Angeles last evening, but if so, I haven't heard of it. When he starts doing things for LGBTQ Americans (as opposed to just talking about it), THAT will change that GLBTQ people can believe in.
I still have faith however that Mr. O will come through for us as best he can when he can.
I feel the criticism of the president here on this topic, in large part, has been very unfair.
I've been pilloried for urging patience in this web space but I think my written record here underscores my political judgement and supports the correctness of my position.
I do not trust this.
I am sure that Lambda, GLAD and the other folks who have an actual, coordinated legal strategy are not pleased by this. GLAD, for example, has filed a very strategic case against the Section 3 of DOMA, the federal prohibition, and not targeted the state piece.
Good for Ted Olson for having a change of heart, if it is sincere, but this litigation is fraught with peril.
We also almost got an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, and a host of other stupidities thanks to conservatives.
Conservative Republicans are still the nutjobs attacking gays every day, the ones out there signing petitions to keep us down, spewing hate speech on tv..
Also, we got DADT because that bigot traitor Senator Sam Nunn decided to host a presser about how "awful" it would be for gays to be on submarines. I remember it because I was a gay man preaching Protestant services on a submarine in the North Atlantic at the time because none of the straight guys would step up and hold Protestant services. I know because I asked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM because I didn't want to be asked later, "If you knew you were gay, why did you preach Protestant services?" In fact, when I was asked to preach I balked and when asked why by my XO I claimed, "Uhhhh, I 'party too much!'" LOL
Perfect metaphor!
Whatever it means, it's good. Boies is supposed to be a fantastic trial lawyer.
The fight is now over in CA.
Olson is their favorite lawyer and his wife died on 9/11.
This is wonderful news.
I don't know but, he did lay out a great argument and he was quoted. I guess we will see. SEMPER FI!
I'm thinking this is supposed to be the nail in the coffin of gay marriage, since it's likely to reach the Supreme Court before the challenge to DOMA (now in federal court) does.
Still old and cynical, yes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/...
Every single LGBT legal advocacy group that has been *carefully laying the groundwork* for their cases across YEARS of preparation is opposed to making a federal case now:
Lambda Legal
National Center for Lesbian Rights
GLAD-Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
ACLU
Along with national LGBT orgs:
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Human Rights Campaign
GLAAD
Freedom to Marry
Read their joint press release from this morning:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/laws...
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/make_change_...
I had individuals state that once Prop 8 was defeated the Catholic Church would be forced to perform gay weddings or loose their tax status. That is what prompted me to support Prop 8. What assurance will Mr. Olson give the churches, priests and clergy who do not want to perform gay weddings?
Let's keep to the actual discussion at hand: CIVIL MARRIAGE
Even straight people don't need to go to a bigoted church to get LEGALLY married. But let's not forget, there are umpteen churches and clergymembers out there that have been happily marrying gay couples for YEARS.
Besides, I know of NO gay couples who plan to FORCE some hateful church to perform their weddings. I'm doing mine at my home with friends & family in attendance. No need for some wizard or magician to be involved!
Doesn't mean you're going to do a damned thing for them if you ever get back in power. viz. Obama, Barack
Democrats, 'Liberals,' Progressives - NOW is your chance. Time and Tide in the affairs of Men = now. Step up or get stepped on.
I guess it all comes down to the American people (where it should be). I hope the time is now for the gay community.
In twenty years, you'll probably be eating some crow.
It is heartening that Steve Schmidt and Ted Olsen, staunch conservatives, are standing up for equal marriage rights for BGLT people. Let's hope their views are far reaching.
Disgusting insinuations that the death of Olsen's wife was some soft of karmic payback, which idea is basically indistinguishable from "He had it comin'."
Has it occurred to any of you that you often display the kind of pure, unreasoning hate which you project upon your right-wing opponents?
It's no wonder that we point our fingers at you freaks and laugh...with disgust.
The concept that Karma is some sort of "payback" or God's Revenge or some sort of 'justice' we can see is unfortunately common, and to the extent my post contributed to that impression I apologize. However, the use I made of it was within it's most bare definition, which is that of cause and effect, and that as Olson was directly involved in the placement of Bush in power (cause,) then we ALL received an effect shortly, the death of his wife and thousands of others on September 11 directly because of the negligence of the person he helped put in power, Olson did participate in an act that demonstrated one aspect of the concept of Karma contained within a short span of his public life. Cause, effect, with an added personal touch that involved marriage and also it's benefits. At that simple level it fits the definition of Karma, and the most common one that of cause and effect.
Karma more often is thought to be observed in repeat cycles, not dramatic pairs of opposites. And there are all sorts of areas where Karma may be seen, and all sorts of theories and beliefs, there is personal evolutionary Karma usually pondered for the release from personal repeat cycles of undesired behavior - usually non-apparent to a casual observer - there is what is seen as national Karma, like what Sharon Stone stepped into whilst speculating about China's earthquakes, and there are isolated cases of what I would call 'Newtonian Karma' - where one can see Cause, and Effect woven into someone's life within short order.
I, the only one on this thread who used the word Karma, was observing the latter. I have no way of knowing how this might have parallels with any of what might be seen as Olson's personal Karma, that is not my business nor appropriate to speculate upon. However - this instance / these connected instances, as they are public (they affected us all,) are appropriate to observe publicly and combine philosophically, they ARE harsh, and they're full of irony on several levels.
Most people who use the word "karma" are probably not the same ones who use the concept of divine retribution and justice in a way that relishes what the perceived effects garner. They are usually not celebrating death and destruction as good and meet, but usually more observing the cautionary tale. The concept of God's revenge and or the enjoyment of a stranger's pain is not really compatible with the traditional concept(s) of Karma.
AND most people, especially on this blog, who use the word [your post possibly excepted,] know how the word is used and use it correctly. And they would gladly explain if asked, not told.
Telling people what they are saying, using terms like "YOUR SIDE" (there are in fact many sides represented in the threads on this blog, it is remarkable and usually civilized,) and whining about all the "hate" without contributing anything useful is, if I may be permitted yet another usage of the word, bad Karma.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/laws...
New York, May 27, 2009 — In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back. The groups released a new publication, “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California.” This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.
The day they start making law from the bench is the day you no longer live in America.
It's the equal protection clause buddy. You can't give a civil right to one citizen (a hetero) and deny that same civil right to another ( a gay or lesbian) just because of genitalia.
Why would we want a challenge in the unfriendly federal court system, and particularly at the US Supreme Court level? The SCOTUS is sure to vote against Marriage Equality for gays. Is this a Trojan Horse tactic?