Ted Olson and David Boies are insanely good advocates for marriage equality -
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Thanks, I've forwarded these on.
1. It's damaging to previously existing news networks.
2. The children suffer (my neighbor watches Fox quite excessively, and his kids are totally screwed up - correlation doesn't mean causation, but when we're talking about the welfare of the children, we can't be too cautious!)
3. If the voters want it, then by Jeebus, they should have it, Second Amendment be damned!
4. We have a long national history of not having Fox News - in fact, this country was built on not having Fox News. The introduction of Fox News is DIFFERENT from what we've had before, therefore, it must be bad, and must be abolished!
I'm sure there are more points we can make here - anyone else?
You mean First Amendment, right?
Can't believe fag-hag used the "anyone with half a brain" argument. That's an internet argument for someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Addressing all that research is just too much work! It's easier to rely on "we aren't bigots, we just want to think of the children." I get that: it's hard work preventing "one of the basic structures in society" from forming. You have to keep on it from birth to death: making it as hard as possible for gay families to have kids, kicking their children out of Catholic school, canceling prom and then making up a fake one, and hassling older couples when they go to the hospital. No wonder there has been no time to read about the empirical data.
*stolen from the late lamented David Foster Wallace
Tony Perkins is and always will be a well-dressed shill for the extreme right wing. He is exactly what we expect him to be, and completely predictable.
But after watching Mike Wallace for most of my life, I cringe whenever I see Chris Wallace pretend to be a journalist. It's sad and pathetic, and I can't help but think his dad must be totally embarrassed. Watching Ted Olson destroy him was immensely satisfying.
One of these guys is convinced that he's got a winning argument with his claim that gays practice gender-discrimination against women, and same-sex marriage would codify that gender discrimination. Or something like that.
And by the way, there's no "ban" on gay marriage.
Also from opineeditorials: There was a ban on issuing marriage licenses to brideless or groomless pairings. But there was no ban on ceremonies or any of the other things that brides and grooms have been doing together for millennia that have been mimmicked or downright mocked by brideless or groomless couples. Or triads, or quads - of any sexual composition for that matter.
*Runs off to fan herself*
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.]
In his dissent in Lawrence, Scalia argued that when the Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, they were taking what should be a state issue and making it a Federal issue, and a lot of people had strongly held religious-based views against abortion. As a result, since Roe v. Wade, there's been a lot of litigation because--Scalia argues--the Court was way out in front of public opinion (and he would say wrong) when they ruled.
So, in spite of the merits in law and in fact of Perry, Scalia would want SCOTUS to overturn because it would doubtless lead to legal mayhem.
Kennedy is the swing vote, and if Kennedy decides to end his career on the court quietly and not be forever known as "That Gay Marriage Judge Guy," this could provide him with an out.
BUT--this just in--because there was no government intervenor in California on behalf of Prop 8, the proponents may not have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court. So the whole point may be moot.
(And I apologize for being so long winded here where commenters delight in being brief and pithy.)
I particularly like Olson's statement about the 14th Ammendment being a result of a Civil War fought over the question of Equality. The matter is settled in a way that a simple poll of Californians can't change.
I should HOPE Judge Walker thinks he knows better than 7 million Californians! He sat through days and days of testimony brought forward by attorneys who painstakingly assembled their cases, while most of the voters who voted Yes on 8 did so on the basis of some things they heard from various unreliable sources like preachers, the Yes on 8 campaign, friends and family no better informed than themselves, and media talking heads. It is the right and the duty of judges to deliberate with a cool head on issues that Joe Public gets a hot head over. The Founding Fathers spent a lot of time thinking about two things they feared and how to avoid them: autocratic tyranny and mob rule. Through Article 3 of the Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1793, and Marbury vs. Madison, they empowered judges to be the level-headed voice of reason to guard against both.