Here's some nice ZOT for you and all your friends:
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Then you can read, but not comprehend - I do NOT support gay marriage as marriage is an institution before God.
IMHO - the government should never have begun recognizing "marriage" as it has been used ever since, by the government, to exert power over the people in ways the government should NOT be allowed to do. If anything, the government need only provide for a legal foundation where two individuals can enter into a contractual agreement.
My promise to my wife, before God, needs no sanction of the government to make it valid. My contractual obligations to a partner, while morally binding, needs no sanction from God to make it valid. God provides sanctions for my breaking a promise made before him. The government provides for sanctions when breaking a contract under its jurisdiction.
As far as I am concerned, Ted Olson got lucky on Bush v Gore and was rewarded with the Solicitor General position. He got a lot of sympathy when his conservative wife was killed on 9/11/01. But the fact remains that Ted Olson has NEVER been a conservative.
I think if anything we should all be very thankful that he was not nominated for the Supreme Court. I never heard his name before Alito was nominated, but he was mentioned A LOT before Roberts was initially nominated. Olson on the Supreme Court would have been a DISASTER.
The extremist homosexual activists stand up and cheer when they hear your position espoused. Literally. I’ve seen it.
Natural marriage is the bedrock societal, governmental, and economic institution of our entire civilization. Destroy it and the whole edifice falls down. Every time.
The government was not given the power to do that ...
Christianity is Christ and Christ only. Islam is a mish mash of everything.
Oh, so there are only Catholics? No Lutherans, Baptists, Adventists, Methodists and several others?
We are done.
Stop looking for an enemy ...
>> Olsen: “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage.”
Condescending idiot.
These wolves in sheep's clothing, these sleepers, are all over the place in the republican party, and they're pretending even to be conservatives.
Thank God for the church to combat this foolishness.
But we might be discovering the catacombs again.
Here's some nice ZOT for you and all your friends:
Oh please. I have stated repeatedly what my position is and you continue to claim that I support gay marriage - and now that I advocate the elimination of marriage all together.
Once more - marriage is between a man and a woman before God. Government plays no role whatsoever, nor should they. The fact that governments HAVE mixed themselves into the equation is the entire problem!
Or victimizing children by exposing them to the “gay lifestyle”.
So you advocate for bigamy, child marriage, family marriage, polygamy as well as gay marriage. Nice.
Celebrating perversion and implementing special rights for perverts is NOT conservative.
Nancy Pelosi’s neck of the woods. What else should we expect.
YOU advocate for gay marriage and every other type of marriage some person can conceive of by arguing that the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
HOW pray tell, do you NOT advocate for those very things unless the Government has laws against them?
And do not say something ignorant like...well keep laws making father/daughter marriage or polygamy illegal.
A first day law student would get them thrown out since MARRIAGE itself is not defined.
If they are not able to define marriage, there is no regulation OF ANY SORT and that means FRiend, you advocate for gay marriage and every other type of marriage someone could conceive of.
I do not espouse the destruction of marriage. I do not believe it should confer any special privelege by law.
Further - which "marriage" customs should we accept and grant these priveleges? Only Christian ones? Hindu? Islamic? Wiccan? Atheist? Are we not then advocating certain religions by accepting / denying these customs as "marriage".
IMHO Government needs to ENCOURAGE religious practice as that is the foundation of a moral society. It can not, however, be charged with defining the internal institutions of the religions or determining which are "better" than others.
I didn't even realize that.
Are you really that dense, or is this just a game you play?
No, but I fully believe you either are or at least are completely ignorant on the very basic system of law.
Or, the most likely scenario you are nothing but a pro-gay, pro-gay marriage and pro-homosexual agenda supporter.
Indeed, DJ. What is this world coming to? lolol
BTW, well done!
YOU advocate for gay marriage and every other type of marriage some person can conceive of by arguing that the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
I say that any two consenting adults can enter into any relationship they so desire. This does not make them "married".
HOW pray tell, do you NOT advocate for those very things unless the Government has laws against them?
Since you refuse to divorce the word marriage from what the government recognizes or not, we will not likely get much farther ...
And do not say something ignorant like...well keep laws making father/daughter marriage or polygamy illegal.
Oh - so now we are talking about sexual relations, not "marriage"?
A first day law student would get them thrown out since MARRIAGE itself is not defined.
I would contend that that is indeed the problem!
If they are not able to define marriage, there is no regulation OF ANY SORT ...
Regulation of what? Who can live with whom? Who is required to support who? I think the government is perfectly capable of making such rules without bringing "marriage" into the equation.
“saw Ted Olsen on FNSunday (Chris Wallas) and he made all the liberal constitutional arguments for his case, He said that the US constitution demands that states marry same sex couples( he didnt phrase it that way naturally) because a prior court ruled marriage a human right. Then he made the case that the 14th amendment was about same sex marriage. Wallas asked him about judicial activism and Olsen acted like there was no such thing.”
There is NO constitutional approval of sexual deviation!
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.