Federal Judge Sets Trial Date For CA Same-Sex Marriage Case (The citizens' votes don't count!)

If this wins, will they have to change tax laws too? I think the Feds should stay out of defining what a word means. If they get in that business,we should sue to get back the word gay which was stolen by the homosexuals.

Mr. Olson also reiterated his opposition to Prop. 8 and reminded the Court the ban was “utterly without justification” and creates a social system in which gays and lesbians were “second class citizens.”

I hate to say this, but Ted Olson will take this case to the SCOTUS and Win based on the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

At the SCOTUS Olson will have the votes of Justices, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.

In addition he will have the vote of Justice Kennedy who not only voted in the Majority in Lawrence v. Texas but wrote the Majority Opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

Olson never was a conservative. On this issue though he's gone off the deep end. He isn't even rational.

There is no discrimination in not allowing same sex “marriage”. A homo can marry any one woman he or she can get to marry him just like straights can.

Keeping a same sex couple from marrying is no more discrimination than keeping 3 people from marrying or keeping brother and sister from marrying.

I agree with you about what Mr Olson is calling equal justice with regard to who can marry who. Why not polygamists?

this is absolutely implied by Olson's reasoning. The homo-activists claim as part of their fold people who are bisexual. To accommodate who THEY are would require at least four in the "marriage" relationship - two men and two women.

And I'm sure NAMBLA is about ready to wet their pants over the implications that this argument has for them.

Perhaps the solution is to countersue each time.

This has been my position for a long time. Whenever a leftist sues in court and loses, the right hasn't gained any ground. Indeed, the stage is set for an appeal with a new set of oligarchs. Perhaps one out of three times the left has a chance at winning, but if they don't, they at least learn the locations of the chinks in the armor.

The only way conservatism will win is to be aggressive - something that conservatism inherently isn't. It rests on establish principles. Unless conservatives work to REVERSE previous leftist victories - revoke domestic partnerships/civil unions, re-criminalize sodomy by reversing horrendous decisions like Lawrence - they won't win in the long haul.

One of the primary ways conservative can be aggressive is to work hard to pass a federal marriage amendment. We had the chance several years ago and threw it away for faulty reasoning with an over-abundance of RINO's and valueless centrists. It is almost certainly now too late. The RINO's and libertarians among us always said that we could pass an FMA when it became absolutely necessary, as a last resort, when the horse is already out of the barn. LOL!

One other risk of litigation is that there is always the real pressure on the conservative side when it wins to give concessions to the leftist. Thus, we have many supposed “conservatives” considering allowing some form of recognition, whether it be “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” to the leftists when they loose. Incredibly, in losing, they actually gain ground.

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.