[Rummyfan]

Why oh why is Ted Olson doing this?

[xcamel]

“No” will never be “no” for these people.

[San Jacinto]

"This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution."

Yep. Right there in the 14th Amendment. "Queers get to marry each other." Most definitely what was intended at the time. During the Civil War, homosexual rights was one of the big issues.

Didn't know Ted Olson was a scumsucker---until now.

[exist]

If restricting marriage to 1 man and 1 woman is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause then what isn’t?

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution”

Then why not polygamy? Why not a muslim with a 9 year old girl like they do in their own countries? Why not a man with a horse; “beastophiles” equal rights?

Society has the right to set its standards. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

[RobRoy]

>>The case “is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” said Olson. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.” <<

Pretty funny. Everyone has equal rights. Gays can marry just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, it cannot be a member of the same sex, a sibling, etc.

Likewise, we can’t do that either.
Completely fair.

[edcoil]

I think I just heard on KFI640 news break that this has been withdrawn as no favorable federal ruling would be given so they are not looking for a different case.

I could be wrong I’ll listen for the next one.

[jeffc]

The challenge in federal court comes a day after the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proposition 8 under the state constitution.

Just as I predicted. You can always find someone to challenge anything.

[skimask]

Ok here goes my “Tin Foil” hat theory. Ted Olsen is doing this because he knows that the Federal Courts will not strike down Prop 8 and thus throw a monkey wrench in to any future challenges that the sodomites might think they can get through a judicial fiat.

[Deb]

Olsen has clearly lost his mind.

[Deo volente]

Ted Olson jumps the shark.

[Landru]

"The case 'is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,' said Olson. 'This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.'"

Oh?

Nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of snagging a nice, fat juicy paycheck.
~eh Ted...errrrr, Counselor?

[longtermmemmory]

the test for a temp. injunction is “a high probablity of success on the merits”

IF the court rejects the temp injunction it means this is not a certainty.

[calcowgirl]

I actually think they are going to win and that it was all planned out.

• 1st step was to give all the rights of marriage to homosexuals under the “domestic partnership” legislation. (Thanks Arnold. /s)

• 2nd step was to get some people ‘officially married”, no matter what it took, and argue that it would be discriminatory to not allow it, since they are already allowed to enter into domestic partnerships. This set up the basis for the first Supreme Court case. (Enter Newsom)

• 3rd step was to get the Supreme Court to acknowledge same-sex marriage as legitimate, which they did in May 2008 and allowed more people to marry from June 2008 until November 2008 when the constitution was amended to define marriage. 18,000 ‘marriages’ took place.

• 4th step was to get the Supreme Court, at a minimum, to allow the 18,000 marriages to be recognized, despite the Prop 8 definition of marriage.

So now, what you have can be argued as a “separate but equal” issue under the 14th amendment. It really sucks.

[CharlesWayneCT]

By this logic, I should be able to walk into the women’s locker room anytime I want. It’s a public place, and apparently it’s against the constitution to restrict it to women only, even if there is a men’s room next door.

More seriously, if this were the case you’d pretty much have to get rid of anything that gave discounts to retired people, since obviously that violates equal protection clauses as much as this does. Why should old people get a discount that a young person can’t get?

[FreepShop1]

I think I have read perhaps 500 posts over the years on this forum to the effect of "Bush should nominate Ted Olsen to the SCOTUS".

Let's just say I'm glad he didn't.

(I also think Barbara would not be proud of his actions)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why even have states? Everything right down to routine traffic stops should be run by the feds.

[SunkenCiv]

...attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies said they had filed a suit in federal court on behalf of two gay California couples, and would seek an injunction to stay the law while arguing it is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, represented former President George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election. Boies represented Bush's Democratic challenger, Al Gore.

Shakespeare was right. :')

[JSDude1]

What gives the Feds the power to OVERTURN a State Constitutional Amendment; this is tyranny (and Olson should know better).

[kaehurowing]

Justice Scalia predicted we would be on the slippery slope to approving every sort of perversion once the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sodomy law.