Comments on: Ted Olson On Gay Marriage

By: Hey You

Hey You — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:36:31 +0000

The posting is fundamentally ambiguous.

Is the quote Mr Olson's or Mr. York's?

Momosexuals (male and female) are NOT discriminated
against by no-same-sex-marriage constraints. Any person, homsexually oriented or not, is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.

The word "marry", along with its various permutations,
has referred to union contracts beween two persons of
opposite sex for many, many generations. Governments do not have the competence to change the meaning of words, especisally those words which have had a well and long established meaning in countless contracts among the citizenry.

Changing the meaning of such words would constitute a clear violation of the sanctity of contracts!

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:17:59 +0000

Barker: Though it's a fundamental basic civics lesson you seem to miss, let me see if I can help you understand, once again.

There are 3 branches of the US Government, Executive (President), Congress (legislative) and the Courts. The reasons the founding fathers created this was to ensure that there would be checks and balances.

The court, as a third arm of Government is there to be the check and balance on what the other two branches do. One of their roles is to test laws that are passed by legislature and government (eg. California laws put to people).

If the right continues to go down this road of denying the appropriate role of the Courts in America they will continue to be, a more and more I fear, minority party.

OK, go ahead, attack away.

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:13:46 +0000

Ted Olson will now have the pleasure of being attacked by his own base for putting forward his, IMHO, correct understanding of the constitution.Good for you Mr. Olson. I bet his deceased wife is looking down rooting him on!

By:

Wed, 27 May 2009 21:13:02 +0000

Sinz: Of course there is federal legislation prohibiting racial discrimination, but Loving wasn't decided on the basis of that federal legislation (which may have even been enacted after Loving). Instead, the case was decided on the basis of the Constitution - specifically the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th requires similarly situated people to be treated similarly. Obviously, the racially mixed couple in Loving was not treated similarly to non-mixed couples, and the State of Virginia lost the case. This is no different from same-sex marriage, and the 14th will require equal treatment.

Many conservatives understand this point, and that is why they called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Absent a constitutional amendment, the 14th will require states to allow same-sex marriage.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:50:09 +0000

Tenek: In the case of interracial marriage, Federal case law prohibits racial discrimination--and in our system, that overrides what a state can do about interracial marriage.

But there is no Federal case law on gay marriage. Hence Federal case law does not apply.

This is a perfect example of how to distinguish our judicial philosophy from Obama's and Sotomayor's: The Constitution is not to be trashed anytime some well-meaning liberal claims to have discovered some injustice somewhere inside the United States.

Now if the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on gay marriage someday, then all states, and all of us, will be bound by that legal ruling.

By: mpolito

mpolito — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:52:39 +0000

Tenek: the courts apply the law. The law comes from the people. There must be a political consensus on what is and what is not a fundamental right. If the U.S. Constitution had been amended after Loving v. Virginia, the courts would have not been able to “overrule” it. I do not oppose interracial marriage; I support letting the people affirm their own constitution. And by the way- since when do the courts possess any unique wisdom? They get it wrong as often as they get it right.

By: Tenek

Tenek — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:35:15 +0000

barker: Sometimes the proper function of the courts is to tell the people to go to hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

By: Jewels

Jewels — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:13:20 +0000

barker13: you make an excellent point. It isn’t so much the “cause” that is at stake here, it is whether or not the courts are willing to do their parts, or to over-rule the will the people.

By: barker13

barker13 — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:20:51 +0000

OK. Here's the problem:

If Olson wants to fight for "justice" the proper place is the political arena, not a Court of Law.

Olsen doesn't approve of Prop 8 - then he should join the forces pushing for... er... Prop 9 (or whatever) which would overturn Prop 8. That's the way the system - democracy... our democratic Republic - was meant to work.

Responding to York's Examiner piece, there is no federal Constitutional right to gay marriage. Don't believe me? Google "US Constitution" and read the damn document; it'll take you maybe ten minutes.

(*SNORT*)

My view on whether gay marriage SHOULD be legal...? I say yes. (*SHRUG*) I also say it's a state by state decision.

The People of Vermont voted "yes." I would have voted "yes" too. So... "yes" it is - in Vermont.

The People of California voted "no." I would have voted "yes." I would have been in the minority yet supported the outcome of the democratic process in spite of personal disappointment in being on the losing side.

I only wish more members of the bar, sworn by oath to defend state and federal Constitutions, possessed the self-restraint necessary to abide by their oaths.

BILL

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:58:15 +0000

I did not vote for Gay marriage and never will BUT I stop at condeming them because God clearly states in the Bible that only HE is judge of a person, not you or me or anyone else on this planet.Vote the way your heart tells you but stop with all the rest of the “message” that looks a whole lot like judgement.