Another Republican For Same Sex Marriage
Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson is joining with David Boies to advocate for repeal of California’s Prop 8. Olson and Boies opposed each other in the Bush v Gore case in 2000 (I’m not sure if I can forgive Olson for helping to give us Bush). Olson is no doubt very conservative, his name was mentioned for SCOTUS vacancies during the Bush administration. Is there a new trend of conservatives supporting gay rights? Recently I’ve seen McCain aide Steve Schmidt, Meghan McCain and now Ted Olson come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Their argument: the State of California giving same sex couples “the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership,” instead of full marriage, violates equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, creating a class of “second-class citizens”
“We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens,” Olson told the AP.
“This is a federal question,” he said, expressing the desire that the case end up before the US Supreme Court. This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.”
“For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson told The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”
I welcome all the help we can get on marriage equity. My question is this: why now? Wouldn’t Olson’s advocacy on behalf of same-sex couples have been more impactful when he was Solicitor General in a Republican administration? What actions did Olson take as Solicitor General on DOMA or DADT?
Tags: Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage
I knew that the status of some same sex marriage is o.k. and others aren’t would be where the litigation occurred.
Actually, what they are claiming is the Mass. argument that civil unions can’t be allowed. They are saying that you have all or nothing. Even in VT, NY, and NJ that argument went down in flames. It has almost no chance in federal court and would only give ammunition to people who oppose civil unions. Most people would rather give nothing than all or nothing.
Olsen is officially expelled from my good list. He is useless.
In other news, a bunch of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans rallied against a pro-gay marriage resolution in the Dover Human Relations Commission. http://stoptaxing.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/dover-citizens-rally-against-same-sex-marriage/ It wasn’t even close. The news story is in my link plus additional observations.
States are free to regulate marriage, the Feds have no role here.
This movement is similiar to Abortion when indivdidual states were carrying out 50 different policies on abortion and to solve that problem the Supreme Court dreamed up the extension of privacy to killing unborn children.
In both cases, these issues should be put to the people and stop the courts from extracting something from nothing.
Mike Protack
Another Republican of insufficient purity is purged from the group. Thanks for proving our point!
So states are free to offer marriage to some couples and not others based on “tradition” and “personal religious beliefs” and… what else now? Are we cloak this in “federalism”. Wasn’t the civil war fought over something like this?
Are some people celebrate this on their blog!
Maybe you’re just a victim of weak thinking or blinded by some religious tradition… whatever the cause.. the result is fucking bigotry.
Argue with the people
From the Delaware State News:
Gay marriage proposal mostly under fire
Majority oppose Dover panel’s measure to allow same-sex unions
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — A proposal in support of same-sex marriage drew heavy opposition Wednesday night.
Most speakers in a public hearing before Dover Human Relations Commission urged the withdrawal or rejection of a resolution calling on city officials to push for extending the right to marry to homosexual couples.
Many said gay marriage would victimize children who would grow up without a father or a mother, depending on the gender of the couple with whom they lived. Others said it would threaten the very survival of mankind if it became widespread. A number cited the Bible as the source for their opposition.
“This world is on its way to destruction if you allow this to pass,” Stephen Wilson, who described himself as an 18-year-old active church member, testified. “It’s wrong, and it’s absolutely from the enemy.”
Only three speakers favored the resolution, which was authored by Commission Chairman Samuel B. Hoff.
It states “all citizens of Dover should be able to engage in legal matrimony, irrespective of sexual preference” and urges City Council and Mayor Carleton E. Carey Sr. “to take a stand in support of gay marriage as a human right and to advocate for passage of a law permitting gay marriage in Dover and throughout the state of Delaware.”
Mike von Reider, one of the resolution’s few supporters who spoke, recommended an amendment, replacing “irrespective of sexual preference” with “irrespective of gender.” Being straight or gay, he said, is not a result of preference but of an orientation that cannot be changed.
“I can no more become heterosexual than you could choose to be gay,” he said.
Some 150 people, including speakers from as far away as Millsboro and Wilmington, packed the City Council chamber for the 90-minute hearing, with many in attendance forced to sit on the floor or stand.
A number of speakers noted the civil nature of the proceeding, which often included applause but never produced boos or catcalls.
Mr. Hoff was applauded by part of the audience when he concluded the hearing by calling it a “beneficial and positive exercise in democracy.”
redacted for 500 word limit
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.
Shaun Fink of Millsboro warned that society would face staggering costs for tax breaks, health care and other benefits if marriage is extended not only to gays, but to others who would demand the right to marry, including threesomes.
STFU! How in the hell did he leave out that cats now want to marry dogs, too?
Liz Allen, you may now officially give your tin foil hat to Shaun Fink.
Going further on that block, Shaun inadvertant or otherwise, basically is saying, “tax breaks for me, but not for you, because I’m more normal than you…nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaaaaahhhhh.”
The.hate.needs.to.stop.damnit.
I agree that the hate needs to stop, Smitty.
The argument above certainly is silly. It seems to be an argument against marriage in general, since when people get married they want their spouse covered by insurance and they might have kids!
Repub Dave – That article proves my point. Number 1 – The christian god is not the boss of us. What’s with the bible verse as sources of opposition? Why is that OK? The founders would have laughed that bullshit right out of town.
Number 2 – It would victimize children? If this is indeed so then divorce should be outlawed forthwith. This is baseless fear mongering and you know it. Another loser argument from a loser.
Treating this as some existential threat to humanity is fucking mind-boggling. There is no way you could defend this line of reasoning with a straight face… can’t be done. It’s inane on its face.
Protack – if the Feds have no role in marriage, why did YOUR PARTY (the fair and balanced, we don’t torture gang, Newt “I’m on my third marriage” Gingrich) push through the “Defense” of Marriage Act? Explain this one, if you can.
MJ – DOMA passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 (32 D’s voting yea) in the Senate & 342-67 (118 D yeas) in the House of Representatives and was signed by Bill Clinton.
Take your CAPS and go find some FACTS.
Burris – GOP in control of Congress and I believe there were threats from YOUR PARTY to hold up judicial nominations and the budget unless President Clinton signed the legislation. So, yeah, I know my facts. Why not admit that YOUR PARTY is a party of hate, bigotry, small minds?
Hate? Bigotry? Small minds? Sounds like you’re describing your News-Journal comment stream.
The Dems voted for DOMA nearly 2-1 and the President signed it. It may not play into your desired story, but facts are stubborn things.
Not to mention it was the correct policy which is why to this day it has bipartisan support.
Do you highlight Dems who oppose reinventing marriage?
Like President Obama.