More on Prop 8

I didn’t realize that Theodore Olsen was the attorney that represented the Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case. Readers might remember him as the Solicitor General under George W. Bush who lost his wife on 9/11 when the plane she was in slammed into the Pentagon.

Apparently, while a Republican and an avowed conservative, he is a lawyer first, believing in the rule of law, and specifically that a majority of voters in any one state do not get to overrule the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States. As he says in the following interview with Chris Wallace of FAUX News (who is not impressive – he’s certainly not his father) the right to marriage is a fundamental right that should be valued by liberals and conservatives alike.

It’s nice to see someone take an inclusive, rather than a divisive stance. Marriage should not be a political football passed around to score points with various constituencies. It’s people that are being affected by the issue every day. Real live human beings with families and emotions and lives.

Wallace does an abysmal job baiting Olsen with his conservative bona fides, who in turn does a nice job batting down all of his talking points. It’s not a long interview, and it’s refreshing.

Enjoy.

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!

47 thoughts on “More on Prop 8

  1. Most people use the term “judicial activism” to describe decisions they don’t like.
    – Exactly

    What a maroon. You’re right, he certainly isn’t his father.

  2. Pingback: World Wide News Flash

  3. Chris Wallace is an idiot. I didn’t realize that re-phrasin the same couple of questions in multiple ways – because the interviewer doesn’t like any of the answers he’s already gotten – is regarded as interviewing someone. Kudos to Olson for not getting frustrated and smacking Wallace upside the head.

  4. I remember when the suit was first filed, there was some suspicion from some liberals and gay activists about Olsen’s participation, but he really did act out of principle. Good for him.

  5. I had to cringe at the bit about “your conservative credentials.” It’s almost unbelievable to me that somebody could say something like that with a straight face, it’s so pathetic.

  6. This was almost as good as when Bill Clinton handed Chris his ass on a plate when Chris did his weaselly “people want me to ask you why you didn’t put bin Laden out of business when you were president” interview.

    • So funny you mentioned this: watching the clip triggered the same memory in my co-worker and we sat and watched THAT clip right after!

  7. LMAO! Nice try, Ted. And, of course, the framers of the Constitution never had two males buggering each other in mind when they defined marriage as a fundamental right. Only later, in a society that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like Sunnybrook Farm, would it ever be conceivable to consign homosexuality as a legitimate act or lifestyle.

    The homo lobby has a lot of money and political clout, and that is all that’s needed to ensure that the law is bent to serve their agenda. That agenda is the eventual overthrow of Christianity and the destruction of the family unit as defined by God.

    Fine. Let them. After all, the Bible not only exposes the satanic practice for what it is… a soul-destroying, rotten, bestial act, but also forecasts it’s eventual demise with the destruction of all of it’s practitioners. Just because God allows something to go on, for a time, doesn’t mean He will condone it forever.

    A permissive society, i.e, a society without a moral compass, always degenerates. Without a clearly defined moral and spiritual guide , such as God’s Word, the people are doomed to slavery to their own passions.

      • He’s probably into some sick shit, and this constant denouncing of it just makes it that much hotter for him when he indulges. Those indulgences are probably followed by some elaborate penance. In fact, these little jaunts of his into the atheosphere may be part of that, so every time he shows up after an absence and starts spouting angry, anti-gay shit is probably just after he had his ass reamed and/or a salty protein shake.

        His closet is a walk-in Jesus shrine.

    • As a matter of fact, that’s the most prominent gay pick up line…

      You know if we hook up, it’ll overthrow Christianity and destroy the family unit defined by God.
      – Ok, I’m in.

      I’m curious about one thing though, Gids. You keep referring to “homos”. Does that include the lesbians, or are you ok with them?

  8. “… because your reasoning is for shit.”

    I’m assuming that by that quip you mean the homo agenda? Well, I’ll concede that your average fairy probably isn’t aware of what kind of movement is… *ahem*… behind him and his view of sexuality and life in general, however, there’s really nothing else that can come from such an organized group such as the GLBT. Also, if I’m so full of shit on this, how many of your readers have expressed their desire, here, on this blog, (including you) that Christianity or at least organized religion be banned?

    Unless it comes from a fag-approved, governmental (elitist-controlled) or “scientific” source, you won’t accept it. Ever consider how many societies over the centuries have inevitably broken down due to the destruction of or lack of a moral compass, this being accomplished through the acceptance and proliferation of debauch sexual practices? You can pinpoint homosexuality at the top of the list as the preferred lifestyle of rich and corrupt statesmen and politicians in most if not all of the ‘great’ empires of antiquity… such as Rome, Greece, etc. Look at modern Rome, i.e. the Catholic Church… ’nuff said, there, eh?

    More on the homo agenda, here.

    Time to turn off the ‘sleep’ mode on the ‘ol alarm clock and wake up, kiddies!

  9. Also, any “latent homosexual tendencies” or any other activity or lifestyle identified by God as sinful and corrupt, would necessarily have to be brought under control and/or abolished. Even though stealing, lying, adultery, etc, all fall into the category of sinful practices to avoid, homosexuality enjoys the rather dubious distinction of occupying a lofty position on the list of particularly disgusting activities in God’s sight.

    Conversely, God and Christians ‘enjoy’ the almost universal focused and virulent hatred of fags.

    No coincidence, there!

  10. “I’m curious about one thing though, Gids. You keep referring to “homos”. Does that include the lesbians, or are you ok with them?”

    I think you know the answer to that one, Chief. Anyway, it seems that John is censoring me, again, or his spam filter caught my previous comment with a link to another site.

    Just for the record, I’m not (like many, here) gay, nor do I aspire to be gay. I’ve never wished I was, either. I do know some gay individuals who have the good sense not to push their peculiar lifestyle on myself or anyone, nor do I push my beliefs on them. Certain subjects are never broached. Certainly, they are not militant in their beliefs, unlike those in the GLBT mafia.

    So, if you wouldn’t mind releasing my other comment from WordPress purgatory, John, I’d be obliged… if you haven’t deleted it, already, in accordance with infidel standards on free speech.

    • Those three up there are all I found. One did have a link, but if you remember, your posts are all moderated, links or no links. They all have to be seen by me first, then released. So far, every one has been released.

  11. …how many of your readers have expressed their desire, here, on this blog, (including you) that Christianity or at least organized religion be banned?

    Could you provide citations? I know many of us have said we’d like people to voluntarily discard their religious dogma and superstitions. That’s a far cry from wanting religions to be banned.

    • “Could you provide citations?”

      I could, if I wanted to devote an entire day to scanning over all of your individual blogs. You do it. I know that if I were an infidel stating what I did, you wouldn’t even be questioning me. What I will do is refer you to your guru, Richard Dawkins, who wanted religious upbringing made illegal, counting it a form of child abuse.

      You know bloody well I speak the truth. Even if many of those comments were made off the cuff, or in jest, it reveals an underlying animosity that wouldn’t hesitate, if it could, to ban all religion… except that of Darwinism, of course.

      • Giddy

        Methinks thou doth feel persecuted too much.

        First, all Dawkins ever said is that teaching a child that her best friend went to eternal hell is more insidious that actually physically abusing her, and far more long lasting. In that sense, it is child abuse. That’s not the same thing as banning religion. Hyperbole much?

        Second, I think if you actually backed through everything we have ever said, while we THINK religion is useless, worthless, etc., we also think that everyone has every right to believe what they want – even utter nonsense. We BELIEVE in the First Amendment.

        • “Methinks thou doth feel persecuted too much.”

          I don’t feel persecuted, John, it’s you infidels and particularly the gay infidels that feel that Christians are out to get them. I’ve been the recipient of many a rant along those lines.

          Also, I think inferring his overall attitude from certain personal statements of Dawkins’ is quite reasonable, given his obnoxious, frenetic tirades against God and Christians in the past.

          Do I have to drag out that video where he lambastes God in front of Ben Stein, John?

          Hmmm?

  12. Yes, I must say I’ve found both Olsen and Boies very impressive in television interviews. There’s a one clip from, I think, CBS, where Boies hammers Tony Perkins. A witness stand, he tells Perkins, is a lonely place to lie. Courts, unlike political campaigns, care about facts.

  13. Gideon, you’re trying to be too clever, denying that you feel persecuted. Yet the very first comment you made on this thread you said:
    “The homo lobby has a lot of money and political clout, and that is all that ’s needed to ensure that the law is bent to serve their agenda. That agenda is the eventual overthrow of Christianity and the destruction of the family unit as defined by God.”

    Now Gideon, if you really do believe that the gay agenda is the destruction of a way of life that you obviously value because of the terms in which you describe it, most reasonable people would say you appear to be expressing a feeling of persecution.

    You take the aspirations of others to share in the great boon of civil marriage, and you extrapolate from that an undisclosed purpose, to bring about “the eventual overthrow of Christianity.”

    I don’t know you or anybody on this blog, but it appears to me that you’re not here to have a discussion, in which reason and honesty would be minimum requirements. Why are you here?

  14. “Why are you here?”

    I’m here, Tony, because I believe in free speech.

    Isn’t that why you’re here?

  15. Well yes, Gideon, I’m interested in free speech. Accountability too, yes this is my real name.

    I raised the question, as you know, because I found your statements inconsistent.

    On one hand you said at first that people who wanted to be married to members of the same sex were really pursuing a plan to destroy Christianity. On the other hand, while clearly drawing such an extraordinary inference and presenting yourself as a Christian, you went out of your way to deny your beliefs: that the gay marriage movement is part of a vast overarching plot whose primary purpose is to destroy Christianity and thwart the will of the creator of the universe.

    • On one hand you said at first that people who wanted to be married to members of the same sex were really pursuing a plan to destroy Christianity. On the other hand, while clearly drawing such an extraordinary inference and presenting yourself as a Christian, you went out of your way to deny your beliefs: that the gay marriage movement is part of a vast overarching plot whose primary purpose is to destroy Christianity and thwart the will of the creator of the universe.

      Consistency is not one of his better attributes.

  16. To tie up the loose ends, I think it’s fair to say that everybody likes to engage in honest, robust, exchange of views, but when somebody appears to be contradicting himself we tene to raise that problem so that discussion doesn’t become too confused.

    I mean, do you believe that homosexuals can have a quite innocent reason to want to be married, rather than destroying Christianity? Wanting, as one of the plaintiffs said “to not have to explain myself” to school officials, bank clerks and the like. Wanting to be able to say “We’re married” and to know that the fact will mean something in deciding what happens to your intertwined affairs if you part, if one of you becomes incapable of expressing a legally binding wish, or if one of you suddenly dies.

    Sure, this could all conceivably be part of some nefarious plan to destroy Christianity, but here’s a question: what if Christianity did not exist? Wouldn’t gay partners, especially those who had children, still want to be married for exactly the same reasons?

  17. “I raised the question, as you know, because I found your statements inconsistent.”

    Really? Wow. I’ve never encountered that here, before! What do I say to that one?

    Oh… yeah… just re-read my comments, actually READ them. That should help.

    There really is no inconsistency with what I believe and teach. It’s just a vicious lie perpetrated by certain infidels, here.

    I’m really a super guy!

    😉

  18. Also, timely responses are not possible for me, as John moderates my comments. The rest of you can post as often and as as fast as you like, whereas my comments have to be released by John before they appear.

    So, you see, it’s not exactly a level playing field.

  19. Well back on Sunday 15th I made two long postings directed at you, Gideon, raising what I thought were fair questions, deserving an honest, straightforward answer. Although you’ve posted responses, they could hardly be described as illuminating.

    If you’re really a Christian, aren’t you supposed to be spreading your beliefs to those who will listen (the so-called Great Commission)? Rather than anything that could be recognised as honest engagement such an endeavor, you seem to be giving very twisted, accusatory, and frankly absurd accounts of what homosexual couples are up to. You’ve gloated disgustingly about what you believe will happen to people who don’t share your opinions.

    Do you think that this is conduct worthy of any human being? Or does the belief that God will resurrect you give you an excuse to lie to and taunt those whom you believe will not be resurrected?

    Or are you just a troll here to make Christians look bad?

    • Tony, I’m not here to “spread my beliefs”, I merely tell it like it is. Just like the infidels tell it the way they see it, I tell what I know. That happens to piss certain individuals off, but, that really isn’t my concern. People tend to think the way they will, regardless of what you or I might say to them.

      Yeah, your questions were fair, and I’ve heard them a zillion times. (That’s not REALLY the number One Zillion, for those of a twisted, literal mind, here, btw.) I get tired of repeating the answers. And, I don’t gloat over the profound ignorance I find. I believe we’re dealing with life and death in these issues, despite the flippant attitude of those that merely like to argue and scoff. I also do not know who will or will not be resurrected, however, I do know what kind of activity pleases and displeases God. Using that as a guide, I think it’s a fair assumption to be able to make educated guesses as to the chances of many, here, ever reaching Heaven.

      Many Christians don’t need my help to look bad, and John is faithful, every week, to record those instances. He should post some of the things that infidels do, too, as they are just as imaginative in their evil and as hypocritical as the worst believer.

      Lastly, my conduct is most times in equilibrium with the conduct around me. That’s not an excuse, either, it’s just fact. I’m a firm believer in the maxim “eye for an eye” when it’s appropriate, too. Christ, you’ll tell me, disputed that text in the new dispensation. The simple answer, then, would be to tell you that I’m not Christ. Believe it or not, I pull more punches than I throw, so you can take that for what it’s worth.

      So, however you wish to deal with me is how you’ll be treated in return.

  20. Thanks for taking my questions more seriously. I don’t think you’re that far from most of us, because you certainly seem to be recognising the humanity of the others here, and you explicitly compare your thread conduct to that of others. You recognise a kinship there. You love your fellow humans, you are not really here to gloat. You eschew tribalism and criticise it when you perceive it in others, admitting that the behavior of many Christians is worthy of opprobrium and asking why John doesn’t pay some attention to the misbehavior of unbelievers.

    Lest you think me a hypocrite, I’ll say for the record that I’ve said things I now regret. Whether we attribute it to estrangement from a perfect, godly state, or to our ape heritage, or something else entirely, we can probably all agree that we are not as kind to one another in our disagreement as we want to be.

    Recognising that the other person is also human is good. Disagreeing with him (or her) robustly is good, too. That works. Hello Gideon, I’m Tony.

    • “I suspect that Gideon is a machination of Larry Wallberg, but it’s hard to tell.”

      It’s sometimes tricky knowing who or what you’re dealing with, online, cl. That’s why I’m always on the up and up, myself. How about you?

      “Thanks for taking my questions more seriously.”

      Like I said, Sher… Tony, I treat others the way they treat me.

      😉

  21. Tony Sidaway,

    Or are you just a troll here to make Christians look bad?

    I suspect that Gideon is a machination of Larry Wallberg, but it’s hard to tell. At least one of this blog’s regular readers – Larry Wallberg – has a history of inventing Christian sockpuppets to flame people, so I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that turns out to be the case. Both Larry and Gideon are uproariously funny, both share an affinity for well-typed comments, and the voices are similar. OTOH, Gideon seems to believe in the things he says, and, he’s consistently Gideon, so… perhaps Gideon is for real? It’s hard to tell.

    I enjoyed reading your comments and would welcome you at my blog anytime.

    Gideon,

    He should post some of the things that infidels do, too, as they are just as imaginative in their evil and as hypocritical as the worst believer.

    I agree. Any good aside, the focus here is awfully one-sided. I admire people who give equal criticism to their own positions and affiliates.

  22. John, are you obsessed with me? It seems that wherever I leave a comment, your cute little skull pops up not long after. If you don’t want to have a normal discussion with me, you should just get on with your life. Precious seconds tick away every time you write me, seconds that you’ll never get back.

    [sarcasm] Any my, what sophisticated jokes you have. [/sarcasm]

  23. “Like I said Sher… Tony”

    It’s always a pleasure to meet somebody who remembers me from when I used to post under my trans name, Sherilyn. I don’t recall if we ever met online before, Gideon. Are you, like my old friend PZ Myers, a veteran of talk.origins?

Comments are closed.