Posted on 08/23/2009 10:30:01 AM PDT by IbJensen
Sure. This guy is about as conservative as Barbara Boxer.
The measure did not pass by a narrow margin. Where’d they get that notion?
I noticed that too.
” This guy is about as conservative as Barbara Boxer. “
He’s in it for his cut of the money.
We’re a republic, not a democracy. The rule of law supercedes majority opinion. The majority cannot rightfully do whatever an individual citizen has no right to do, since the powers and rights of the majority derive utterly from the rights and powers of each citizen. So it’s valid to have judicial review of any law passed by the voters regarding the Constitutionality of said law.
The vote on Prop. 8 was 52.3% in favor, 47.7% against. They are saying that’s a narrow margin.
If the federal courts overturn Prop. 8, then presumeably you would have nationwide homosexual marriage, because 29 other states also have state marriage constitutional amendments. If the courts overturn 8, it would be saying that a state can’t define marriage at all, that only judges can do so.
The government won’t take NO for an answer.
The fix is in—the Gay Power groups have selected a judge that will give in and give them their marriage thing over and above the will of the people. This is the death of democratic government. It is the rule of the few, the rich and the gay.
Next will come polygamy. Reform is needed.
Oh.
But judicial review happens only upon the filing of lawsuits.
Those in favor of homosexual marriage campaigned against Prop. 8, which was their right. Their side lost, so they went back to court to argue that it was unconstitutional for us to have voted on the definition of marriage in the first place. That argument lost in the state Supreme Court, so now they are looking to the federal courts.
I don’t see how this federal lawsuit can win, because, as of today, FEDERAL LAW DEFINES MARRIAGE as a man and a woman, just as Prop. 8 does.
A big difference between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage is that, interracial marriages from states where it was allowed were fully recognized by the federal government. But in the case of same-sex marriage, the federal government specifically DOES NOT legally recognize such marriages as of now.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
If it had gone the other way the Rats would be calling it a landslide.
No, he hasn't "redefined" the meaning of conservative, he's presented a stark contrast to it. You aren't considered a conservative when you AREN'T conservative.
But if Olsen would be utterly honest and follow his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, exactly what "relationships" could now not be barred? Why only couples? What about pederasts, who "are who they are?"
What a lame-brained argument he has. If this is what he's going on, considering the vast amount of case law against him, I can't imagine it being even close.
It would be nice if we had a review of any law passed by Congress regarding the Constitutionality of said law. In my opinion, they have gone a wee bit beyond the enumerated powers.
...Mr. Olson reasons he is only doing what he believes is right in trying to secure marriage rights for gay couples.
Sure. This guy is about as conservative as Barbara Boxer.”
Breaks my heart to see what Ted Olsen has become.
I believe he is also MORMON, but not 100% sure.
The homosexual activists are going to keep filing multiple suits, much like the left is doing against Sarah Palin. Perhaps the solution is to countersue each time.
Of course they have. Ultimately, all such laws will be found never to have to been laws, and all actions taken under such laws will have to be reversed, and all funds dispersed will have to be returned to the Treasury. Going back many decades.
Funny how that’s narrow but the same numbers for Barry are a mandate.
i noticed the same thing. Obambi won 53-46 and it was claimed as a mandate. No bias in reporting /s
The judge is a Bush I appointee and is said to have a libertarian bent. This looks like a cooked up case with a made in advance result.
“i noticed the same thing. Obambi won 53-46 and it was claimed as a mandate. No bias in reporting /s”
And remember, Obama only won 28 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
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.