Posted on 05/10/2012 12:38:27 PM PDT by torchy
..."I am gratified that the president has thrown his personal support and the authority of the presidency behind the goal of justice, equality, and decency for all citizens," said Ted Olson, founder of the Federalist Society and former Bush administration solicitor general..
I called Olson on Wednesday to get the conservative legal leader's take on the North Carolina gay-marriage ban at the ballot and the way it sets up a Supreme Court showdown, possibly as early as 2013--no matter who is president.
Olson has stern words for his fellow conservatives who flooded the polls on Tuesday, making North Carolina the 30th state to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in its state constitution.
"It is very sad to me that people who belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln are resisting so strenuously the equality and decency and integrity and treatment of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters," Olson said. "This seems to be one of the last major civil-rights battles of our country. And for people in our country to come out in numbers like this and say, ‘Well, we don't want the persons next door--who are decent, God-fearing, taxpaying, obeying-the-law citizens who simply want to have happiness like the rest of us'--to say ‘No, I have that right and you can't have it.' That just seems mean to me."..
This is a profile-in-courage moment for President Obama, but it comes with considerable political risks. The decision recalls a moment of White House history that came to light in the fourth volume of Robert Caro's LBJ biography. When cautioned by advisers that advancing civil rights might be moral but would not be politically pragmatic in 1964, the new president leaned back in his chair and said, "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?"...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
God fearing???
I’m more interested in the fact that this piece was written by John Avlon.
Isn’t he the “no labels” guy whose schtick is to push the leftist agenda under the pretense that he is a non-partisan?
One of his goals is to create dissension in the ranks of Conservatives. People on this thread who are falling for it are doing exactly what he wants them to do.
“No labels” is just as much of a fraud and leftist scam as the Clintonist “Third Way” was. It is every bit as non-partisan as the NAACP or ACORN or SEIU.
And it’s just as phony as having someone like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid decry the partisanship in Washington, when of course they themselves are rabid partisans whose extremist goals are out of step with a majority Center/Right nation.
Don’t be fooled by this type of agit-prop. He and his ilk are constantly putting on leftist “morality plays”, except that we all know that the left’s agenda is anything but moral...
“A conservative legal scholar’s take.”
A position shared with Sen. Barry Goldwater, deceased
and Vice President Dick Cheney, renewed
“It’s such a shame that Ted wasn’t in that plane instead of his wife.”
I totally agree.
And, by you?
Goldwater married for former Planned Parenthood director and Cheney has a lesbian daughter.
There is nothing conservative about perverting what marriage is.
Olsen argues that the Constitution already requires recognition of gay marriage -- that we, as state voters, don't even get a say in the matter.
Cheney or Goldwater may favor changing state laws to recognize gay marriage ... but IMO they would disagree with Olsen's argument that "it's not even up for a vote."
“This headline needs a hurl alert!”
####
Don’t count on it.
torchy
Since May 7, 2012
“A conservative legal scholar’s take.”
This is an ADVOCACY post.
“Torchy” BTW was a pornographic cartoon character created by Bill Ward.
BTW, welcome to FR.
Are you really new here or are you, um, someone else in real life?
I believe homosexuality was an offense punished by death in some states around the time the Constitution was written.
Come now. Wishing death on the guy because he’s gotten his head up his butt politically is going to far.
Not sure, but these liberal scholars (yes) are the same kind who can swear to us that the Eighth Amendment bars the death penalty even though every state that ratified it HAD the death penalty.
Eh, so was helping slaves escape.
Welcome to FR.
So laws against gay marriage in the 1800s, are to be viewed today as being just as bad as slavery was? Sodomy is a conduct (whether or not it should be outlawed). Slavery was based on race alone.
“Come now. Wishing death on the guy because he’s gotten his head up his butt politically is going to far.”
No. I didn’t/don’t wish him death. I only wished he would have been on that aircraft instead of Barbara. I for one didn’t know that aircraft was going to crash into the Pentagon.
I've always heard that he leaned back in his chair and said, "I'll have them n------s voting Democrat for two hundred years."
0b0z0’s Komsomol or 0h0m0’s Komsotrolls members who are coming out to make sure he’s reelected, especially after coming out of the closet!
Posting history that includes attacking Bristol Palin, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:torchy/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Eh, so was helping slaves escape.
Aren't you confusing the Code of Hammurabi with state laws?
If not, please cite your source for a US state law around the time that the Constitution was written that prescribed the death penalty for helping slaves escape.
(Not 'slave rebellion', but 'helping slaves escape').
n00b torchy (since 2012-05-07) has posted two articles – Dana Milbank and now John Avlon. Not your typical FR posts.
FReeper ‘a fool in paradise’ appropriately wondered [regarding torchy] … Is you a Moby??!!!
You are comparing slavery to a sexual fetish? Oh dear.
I wouldn't be surprised. The RNC, and Republicans in general, are becoming as bad as the Dems.
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.