Marriage either means natural marriage, or nothing. Once homosexuals can be "married," what is sacred, vital, holy or critical about the number two?
Posted on 03/30/2013 5:27:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Okay, so I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer. Ted Olson is a lawyer -- an accomplished attorney with a fine mind and a capacity for facile argument. But he's dead wrong when he says the law can exclude polygamy or any other marriage arrangement though it recognizes the legal "right" of homosexuals to marry. Let's carefully consider Olson's oral argument in response to Justice Sotomayor's query about the plasticity of marriage should the institution be opened to homosexuals.
SNIP SNIP
Here's the Sotomayor-Olson exchange from a transcript provided by NPR:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
MR. OLSON: Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.
It's selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ted Olson equates Interracial marriage with same-sex marriage and then on that basis, see’s discrimination.
There’s a critical difference between laws that prohibited marriage based on skin color versus barring marriages based on one’s sex (marriage between two people of the same sex).
Olson does not see that difference.
At first it wasn't a tax but now it is.
With this it will be "The Ruling Allows Polygamy but we are receding that part of the ruling"
I hate Lawyers.
> There’s a critical difference between laws that prohibited
> marriage based on skin color versus barring marriages based
> on one’s sex (marriage between two people of the same sex).
Prohibitions based on ancestry are wrong.
Prohibitions based on behavior are valid.
Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR NOT Ancestry!
So Ted’s a conservative until it comes to the paycheck?
Virtually all trial lawyers are human until someone drags a dollar through their office. (Thanks for the snark James) I say all in a general sense but even those who start out altruistic eventually succumb or become politicians.
The crash can’t some soon enough so the rebirth will include tort rules for loser pays.
No, they are “conservative” until it comes down to the fact that they have to back up their convictions with whatever hardship requires it be defended.
In truth, he, RINOs and appeasing Republicans are really only interested in one thing - power, even if it is only second-tier power. They live in the false idyllic and rarified environs of DC and all its trappings.
They crave whatever power they can garner and they cannot stand to be condemned by a media that is so devoid of honor and truth they make Judas Escariot look like a saint.
They are perfectly willing to accept the ravages of illegal immigration in a vain attempt to pander to hispanics who should be Americans first, and they are perfectly willing to endorse homosexual marriage as if it were a loving committed relationship instead of the perverted buggery that it is.
Marriage either means natural marriage, or nothing. Once homosexuals can be "married," what is sacred, vital, holy or critical about the number two?
In his saying “prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status”, Olson was more likely trying to guide them to consider, as you say “Prohibitions based on behavior are valid” as opposed to how the queers are trying to portray homosexuality as no different than ancestry.
Olson has been doing his trade, from a conservative aspect, before the SCOTUS quite successfully for a long time. I tend
to think he knows what he is doing, from a conservative aspect. Some Freepers seem to think that if a conservative is not shouting CONSERVATISM “in their face” like some tent preacher, they have gone over to the dark side. When often a softer sell gets better results.
What disturbs me is not so much the gay marriage issue, but that a legal vote of the people in California's Prop 8 referendum is being shot down by a few unelected judges. I see this as tyranny no different than King George overruling the votes of the colonial assemblies.
You make a valid point. Ted Olson has fought the good fight for decades, even to the extent of being Ronald Reagan’s lawyer. You are also right that legal language is often subtle.
What about arguing on behalf of bestiality Teddy?
And to, the SCOTUS knows who they are, sharing the top of the chain and are not positively responsive to being shoved, one way or anyother. As it should be.
Here’s why Olson is wrong: Islam allows up to 3 wives. Religious freedom would mandate that acceptance. Why isn’t anyone talking about this?
Umm Ted Olsen is arguing for same sex marriage.... I would say that he’s definitely gone over to the darkside.
The undeniable fact, is that the same arguments being used to push homosexual marriage, can and will be used to push polygamy, polyamory, group marriage, incest, and any other arrangements.
Why? Because if we’re saying that any consenting adults can do what they want, and are entitled to governmental/societal acceptance, then nothing can be off limits.
I have seen some LGBT literature, in which the end game, so to speak, is legalized group marriage, with any number of partners, any gender of partners. They are looking to legalized monogamous homosexual marriage as a transitional phase, to get to where they hope to end up eventually.
It amazes me how our culture got rolled on the homosexual marriage issue. Not only in the courts, but, last November, 3 states voters voted to legalize homosexual marriage in their states. (Maryland, Maine, Washington). Public opinion is clearly shifting, and we may have nationwide homosexual marriage in the next 10 years or so, regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court this year.
Well, doesn’t the left have to allow poligamy at some point to full merge their Gaia religion with Islam?
RE: Here’s why Olson is wrong: Islam allows up to 3 wives. Religious freedom would mandate that acceptance
Religious Freedom? Do we still have it? If so, how come religious institutions and religious and devout business owners are being FORCED to pay for same sex benefits?
RE: I would say that he’s definitely gone over to the darkside.
Ted Olson was never conservative. He is more of a mercenary.
Whoever pays him the best, he’ll argue his side. Which is what a lawyer does.
RE: So Ted’s a conservative until it comes to the paycheck?
He never was a conservative. His principles are for sale. He’s a lawyer. A mercenary one at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.