Video: Ted Olson and David Boies on why Prop 8 is unconstitutional
posted at 7:37 pm on May 28, 2009 by Allahpundit
As clear and simple a case for attacking marriage laws in the courts as you’re ever likely to hear. In a nutshell, they want the Supremes to explain why the logic of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding people of different races to marry, doesn’t also apply to laws forbidding people of the same sex to marry. Granted, 57 percent of the public likes it that way, but to a judge charged with protecting individual rights against majority discrimination, that’s immaterial. I’ve always suspected that the reason the Court hasn’t confronted this question directly yet is because neither the conservative wing nor the liberal wing feels confident enough about Kennedy’s swing vote. The conservatives suspect — rightly, given his record on this subject — that Kennedy will vote with the liberals; the liberals figure that, with a Democrat in the White House, they can bide their time and wait for Obama to replace one of the conservatives with a liberal, thereby assuring the outcome. I wonder if having heavyweights like Olson and Boies pushing it won’t sway the liberals to take the case this time, though. (Only four votes are needed to grant certiorari.) The oldest conservative member of the Court is Scalia at just 73, so there’s no assurance The One will be able to tip the balance with an appointment even if he serves two terms. It might be now or never.
One interesting footnote: Olson tips their hand a bit as to strategy when he refers offhandedly to discrimination against gays having no “rational basis.” That’s a legal term of art that comes from the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence. Minorities that are deemed specially vulnerable are considered “suspect classes” and laws that target them are reviewed with “strict scrutiny”; laws targeting all other groups (well, almost all other groups) are reviewed more leniently and will be upheld if the state can merely show a “rational basis” for enacting them. It sounds like Olson and Boies aren’t going to try to get the Court to declare gays a “suspect class,” which is how issues like this are normally approached, but instead will make their case on rational basis grounds. Why do it that way? Because Kennedy himself used that very same logic in his opinion for the Court in Romer v. Evans, declaring that a Colorado law declining special protection to gays had no “rational relationship” to any legitimate state interest. In other words, they’re playing straight for the swing vote. Smart.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The counter-argument will be that no one is denied the right to marriage: the union of a man and woman. They’re being denied the right to something that isn’t the definition of marriage and then calling it marriage.
Like I said yesterday, that’s like me redefining “vote” as “owning a Lexus”, and then insist I’m being denied the right to vote because Uncle Sam won’t buy me a Lexus.
amerpundit on May 28, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Bad reasoning based on a bad amendment.
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Skin color and sexual preference are not the same thing Ted.
SoulGlo on May 28, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Olson has proven that anybody can buy a whore.
rplat on May 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM
as hard as i find this argument to disagree with, i still don’t want the federal gov’t. dictating what marriage is to us.
homesickamerican on May 28, 2009 at 7:45 PM
If the People in a state in their State Constitution prohibit gay marriage, how can the general language of the “Equal Protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution be read to say that the People in a State cannot so define marriage? Any Founding Father ever suggest the the “Equal Protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution meant that gay marriage could not be prohibited by the People in their States? Of course not. Anyone associated with ther Civil War Amendments ever suggest the the “Equal Protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution meant that gay marriage could not be prohibited by the People in their States? Again, of course not. In fact, one might think about the applicability of the Tenth Amendment here.
As much as David Boies and Ted Olson are considered really smart lawyers, I am wholly unimpressed by what they say on this subject. They are wrappping up a dubious political argument, based on very contemporary liberal attitudes, in an equal protection argument that just does not work.
Phil Byler on May 28, 2009 at 7:47 PM
yep, that’s the one that am thinking is most relevant.
homesickamerican on May 28, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Obama has been elected. You have an obligation to a gay marriage and right to a Lexus. Optionally you can get a marriage to a Unicorn.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Equal Protection could also apply to polygamy then. If two women, why not a man and two women. Nothing in EP limits it to two.
I think Kennedy might have said something in Lawrence v. Texas about the ruling not giving grounds for legalizing homosexual marriage; it was just about private consensual acts.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Will. Not. Click. On. Chrissy.
Knucklehead on May 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM
exactly what right do straight people have that gays don’t?
Ampersand on May 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Well said
offroadaz on May 28, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Neither. Will. I.
ladyingray on May 28, 2009 at 7:58 PM
This is in my opinion, the problem with Olson’s argument. Why is he discriminating against those that would want multiple spouses or incest? Why is this just a 2-gay vs 2-straight argument? If Olson really wants the Court to explain Loving, then he’d better want them to explain why Loving does or doesn’t also include SSM, Polygamy, and Incestuous Marriage.
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 7:59 PM
I’m still awaiting my Skittle-pooping unicorn, so…
amerpundit on May 28, 2009 at 7:59 PM
**Honda thumps Allah
Because marriage is between a man and woman.
HondaV65 on May 28, 2009 at 8:00 PM
You’ve got to love the flexibility of the liberal mind. Equal protection and due process justify just about every liberal principle or ‘right’. But the 2nd Ammendment clearly says that only states have the right to arm themselves.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Really? I got mine a month ago. It needs some warranty work though – all the skittles have Joe Bidens face on them.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Um, obviously, the right to marry an of-age non-relative of the opposite sex. Hey, wait a minute…
Um, maybe it’s the right to privacy? Yes, that must be it! It’s in there in the penumbra somewhere, don’t worry, I’m sure Kennedy will explain it!
AdrianG on May 28, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Chrisy is squishy………
Seven Percent Solution on May 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Kennedy for the majority in Lawrence. I suppose it could be interpreted in several ways, but he did seem to separate a category of laws that he was distinguishing from homosexual sodomy between adults.
Scalia noted in disssent:
I wonder if Kennedy wants a Scalia “I told you so.”
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM
See, that alone makes it not worth the trouble.
amerpundit on May 28, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Under miscegnation laws blacks (like whites) had the right to marry someone of the same race. What rights did whites have that blacks didn’t?
crr6 on May 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Black people are slaves.
Women aren’t allowed to vote.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Again,the gay groups voted for Obama,and
just like they voted for Bill Clinton,
and for two Liberal Presidents,and the
Liberal Party,
the Gay Rights Groups got screwed again,
by their very own political party!!
canopfor on May 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM
And Very Pious Mormons aren’t allowed to have multiple wives.
Throw them all in if you’re going to throw some in.
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:11 PM
The truth is that the law needs to stop using the word “marriage.” Call everything a “civil union” and the moral dilemma is gone. From there, people are free to decide for themselves what a marriage is.
AbaddonsReign on May 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM
After the Brown decision, some counties all of a sudden decided that the state should not get involved in education, now that black people want to get the same education as white people.
It didn’t fly in the Supreme Court then and I sincerely doubt it will fly now.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:14 PM
So your answer is none?
Ampersand on May 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM
That’s close, but it’s more like saying because you want a grizzly bear for a pet, and you call a “dog.” Then you start declaring it’s unfair you’ve been denied a dog licence for your grizzly bear.
TMK on May 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Then you could still have civil unions among three or more people, and you could have civil unions involving incestuous relations, too. As long as they were all consenting adults.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM
A gay couple can have a marriage ceremony at any church willing to perform the ceremony. They can will property to each other. They can share insurance policies. They can live their lives together.
I suppose they don’t get a tax break and the seal of approval of the state (depending on what state).
So, what exactly, is the travesty here?
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
FIFY.
TMK on May 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Citation to SCOTUS cases in which counties chose to end public education?
That’s quite interesting. I recall private white academies sprung up in the South, but don’t recall any government units shutting their public schools completely.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:17 PM
No of course not. But yours is. Opponents of gay marriage use the exact same logic.
“gays and straights both have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender…so what right is being denied?”
crr6 on May 28, 2009 at 8:18 PM
What gays are going through is pretty much the same thing black went through.
Ampersand on May 28, 2009 at 8:19 PM
The Dems shoulod be smoked out on this. Instead of their being allowed to nibble around the edges on the issue, they should be challenged to make legalizing gay marriage a part of their platform.
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 8:19 PM
So? Its a civil union, who cares?
AbaddonsReign on May 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Ted may believe this is an injustice, but he’s being incredibly naive if he thinks winning will be the end of the matter and that the precedent set will not be used to strike down laws banning other forms of relationships or behaviors. Be careful what you wish for Ted; we’re far removed from segregated-lunch-counter territory.
Erich66 on May 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Gay roasting time.
SC.Charlie on May 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM
And race has what relevance to the definition of marriage?
FontanaConservative on May 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
The fact that you don’t approve.
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I think I’m missing the part where you actually answer the question…
Ampersand on May 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Which is demonstrated by how many black people voted against prop 8 /SARC
=)
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Not for me it isn’t. The libertarian part of me wants the government out of marriage. Another maybe more logical part knows that government has been involved in the matter for ages.
ddrintn on May 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Well, little Allahpundit, when a mommy and daddy love each other very much, they get married so the daddy can put his peepee in the mommy’s vajajay. They then hug really tight and 9 months later a baby is born. And they all live together, taking care of each other. The end.
Blake on May 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Because heterosexuals get to do something that homosexuals don’t get to do, which violates the Equal Protection clause and the DPC of the 14th Amendment, because a majority of Americans don’t like it.
Not allowing people the same treatment under the law, to me, is an offense to the rule of law itself. And that is a travesty, no matter how small it is.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Don’t compare blacks to gays. That’s offensive. You can’t stop being black. Unless you are a total swish, no one can tell if you are gay.
Blake on May 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM
So you’re opposed to slavery and you believe all Americans access to the ballot box… any more extreme leaps of logic you want to try?
Should boys have access to girls’ teams? Should men be able to use women’s dressing rooms, locker rooms, bathrooms?
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM
You can change your sex, but you cannot change your race.
Next case.
profitsbeard on May 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Come on, are we going to start defending the rights of the Polygamists? Equal Protection, baby!
Can you think of any other groups that might not be getting equal protection? I can.
Whatcha say? Going to picket with the guy and his 5 fives?
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Bingo.
I do think that many (most?) supporters of gay marriage want that and only that but those who are actually wielding the political power in the gay-marriage advocacy groups and many other supporters want to mandate acceptance. This slips out when our local trolls regularly call us bigots and when liberal celebrities lament the unfortunate hatred and bigotry of those who supported prop 8 (e.g., Tom Hanks comments about Mormons). In the minds of these supporters were not just wrong but were hateful and disgusting. I don’t trust these people not to want to take away my freedom of speach/thought and religious practice.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Michael Jackson has changed both…
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:26 PM
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Well there are male cheerleaders, but I’ll stop right there.
Still I wholeheartedly agree with you.
FontanaConservative on May 28, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Stop bastardizing the law! Any gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s not a violation of EP, or D/P, and it is definitely not a travesty. I’m sick of these phony hysterics. Jeesh!
Blake on May 28, 2009 at 8:26 PM
That argument will certainly go over like a lead balloon with the public. There’s only superficial differences between races, but saying a male-male marriage is the same as a male-female marriage is pretending there is no difference between the sexes.
frankj on May 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM
The citizens of all the states that currently have laws against incest and bigamy on their books might object.
If laws are to reflect the values of a community, then there should be a general (not unanimous – that would be impossible – consensus on what should be illegal and what should be legal. In a republican form of government, the people decide, through their representatives, or direct vote, such as the referendum. Not to mention the Tenth Amendment factor.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Au contraire. In California they do in civil partnership. However, that’s not what they want. They want for straight people to declare they are just the same as straight people. Well, they are nut.
Blake on May 28, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Little Rock Central High closed down for 1958. Some districts in Virginia closed for 4 years. It was a widespread tactic on the local level. Of course comparing black people to homosexuals is absurd.
What people fail to recognize is that there won’t be homosexuality in 50 or 100 years time, the science is moving so fast. Heck polio was wiped out in less than a generation.
Ted Torgerson on May 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM
So your stand is one of symbolic principle and not one of real substance?
My larger point was that the argument ZOMG!!11eleventy!!!11 gays are just like black slaves and women who couldn’t vote is a completely false argument.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM
When the 14th Amendment was written and passed, women could not vote… was the reasoning for their access to the vote the 14th Amendment?… or perhaps a new amendment going through the amendment process (state legislatures) was needed because no-one in his right mind thought that the 14th Amendment eliminated all distinctions between men and women in regard to either state or federal law.
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM
The community standards and majority opinion was at times overturned by courts during the civil rights movement. Waiting for public opinion to come around might have required another few decades.
dedalus on May 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM
The whole interracial marriage bit is almost eerie to think about. Reading arguments used against it, it boggles my mind that anyone could think that way. It’s beginning to boggle young minds how anyone could see gay people that way. It doesn’t matter what clever arguments we come up with today, a young conservative is more likely than an old liberal to be pro-gay marriage. its only a matter of time.
ernesto on May 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Thank you. That’s very interesting. Did they open up again under court order or juat realize how futile their gestures were?
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:33 PM
It is so amusing to watch such ‘brilliant’ legal minds as these completely miss the point.
The one thing that is entirely clear in this is – NONE of these expert lawyers have read California law. They have taken their own ideological conceptions and applied them in an invalid manner.
Listen up Olsen and Boies.
This is not a descrimination case, nor is it an equal protection case. In California, there are no rights given to people that use the word ‘married’ as opposed to ‘civil union’. There are no differences in inheritence, in hospital visitation rights, custody cases, or anything else!
In California, this discussion is ONLY about the use of a WORD! There ARE no actual rights associated with that word!
In fact, civil unions have been placed as equal to marriage in the eyes of the law in California in support of the atheists that specifically do NOT want to use the WORD MARRIAGE!
These 2 lawyers are simply trying to get their names and faces on tv. They have NOTHING to actually offer to ANYONE with regards to the use of a WORD!
Unfortunatly for them, the only accomplishment they can get from all of this is a nice cream pie in the face!
And to toss the first one at them, I will simply ask them: “Why did you two NOT read the first judgement as rendered by the California supreme court?” In that judgement, they SPECIFICALLY talk about the facts mentioned above! It was their failed reasoning and application of those facts that created the need to update the California constitution.
I wonder how hard the Federal court will come down on these two lawyers. Will it be a gentle “not relevant” or a more forcefull “Why the heck are you wasting our time?”.
Freddy on May 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Neither straight or gay people can marry someone of the same sex. Sad to see that Olson is allowing his personal opinion on the matter to drive him to attempt to overturn the will of the people of California who lawfully changed their state constitution. The people have spoken, and so has the California Supreme Court. Olson should stay the hell out of it.
echosyst on May 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. – 19th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – 14th Amendment
If the 14th was meant to encompass any law which made a distinction based on sex, there would be no need for the 19th.
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I actually saw one “news” story today about this case that prominently brought up the fact that the two lawyers mentioned were the opponents in Algore versus the USA in the 2000 Election.
They still haven’t gotten over the fact that Algore was rejected by the voters of his own home state.
He also won 59% of the high school dropout vote that year, which was only exceeded by Dear Leader’s 70% high school dropout blowout in 2008.
I’m cheering for Ted, BTW. After all, he lost his wife on 9/11. Never forget.
Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 8:37 PM
True in some cases. Washington v. Glucksberg decided to wait for public opinion to change on euthanasia and ruled 9-0 that there was no right to physician-assisted suicide.
Oregon and Washington states have since legalized it, but the community standards of the rest of the states are lagging. The petitioners in Glucksberg used the “mystery of life” language in Casey to argue that choosing how and when to die was as fundamental as procreation, and the community shouldn’t intrude on a rational adult decision. Didn’t get a single vote.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Perhaps there will be no need then for laws relating to race or disability, but the future isn’t guaranteed and we are talking about rights for people that will all likely be dead in 100 years.
dedalus on May 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I could/do accept legalized gay marriage when it’s done at the state level in the properly mandated constitutional way (e.g., by the people). I may not agree with it but I can respect it as the will of the people. I do have a problem with interpreting the constitution to the point of making it nonsensical in order to fit an ideology.
gwelf on May 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Ah crap give me a second.
OK SERIOUSLY that took me like a zillion hours to find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin_v._County_School_Board_of_Prince_Edward_County
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM
No thoughts on Polygamy yet?
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM
People aren’t born polygamous. That’s a cultural/religious decision.
People are born as homosexuals.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:44 PM
So, all Olsen and Boies have to do is to prove there is no “rational basis” for stating a marriage is a union of a man and woman. In other words it’s irrational to define marriage as a man and a woman. Good luck with that considering that is exactly how it has been defined throughout history up to and including the writing of the Constitution and all of it’s amendments. It’s like trying to prove copper should now be gold simply because they both happen to be metals. The mere fact that a same sex couple state they have a union places no obligation on the state to define it as marriage.
Rocks on May 28, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Thank you. (Legal research before Westlaw or LEXIS. Shepards. All there was was Shepards…volume after volume of Shepards.. Oh, and the digests. Volume after volume…) But I digress…
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Go ahead SCOTUS, make my day.
I triple-dog dare you to reverse Prop 8.
Talk about the last straw for judicial fiat. This tyranny has gone on long enough.
cackcon on May 28, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Any proof for that?
TMK on May 28, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Many of the justices wrote separate opinions in the majority. Rehnquist saw it as clearly not a right based on tradition. Others may have seen a compelling interest for the state to restrict the right based on the potential for abuse.
dedalus on May 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
There’s no proof of that, and that’s likely why courts are hesitant to treat this the way they did Loving.
Esthier on May 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a free people to chuck their robed oppressors into the sea….”
cackcon on May 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
People aren’t born polygamous. That’s a cultural/religious decision.
People are born as homosexuals.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Are people born as pedophiles?
Bishop on May 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
First, the debate as to whether people are born homosexual is far from over. Even if one is born with homosexual leanings doesn’t mean one must act on these leanings. Even if one acts on these leanings doesn’t mean they have to get married…
2nd… You’re saying people can’t practice their religion? What if their religion calls for polygamy?
Religion aside, what if a person is say born wanting to have sex with multiple partners. Heck, what if an individual is born wanting to love, have sex, and procreate with multiple partners?
Fair is fair. Equal Opportunity!
Oh, and Polygamy has been around as an acceptable social norm longer than Same Sex Marriage… So let’s just have it all!
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
There have been at least two studies that may show that men are born oriented to multiple sex partners (Yes, I know. Big news.), so might be polygamous by nature. One study made the cover of Time around 1994.
Presumably if further studies confirmed this, then the “born that way” rationale would apply to polygamous men.
Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM
It depends if Proud Rhino says so.
Are people born as criminals? Hey, times change, baby…
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM
I’m not a scientist, I don’t know. I think that’s really what the debate comes down to – whether you think homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like color. I believe it does, but I have as much evidence at my fingertips that people are born gay as you have evidence that nobody is born gay.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM
No they aren’t and there is not one shred of scientific proof which suggests it. Prop 8 defines marriage based on gender anyway, not sexuality. Homosexuality is not a gender.
Rocks on May 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Yet no evidence that people desire to have sex with multiple partners? Even love them?
Upstater85 on May 28, 2009 at 8:51 PM
They sure are, but children can’t consent and homosexuality is not illegal.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:51 PM
For most it’s probably a natural compulsion. Murder and theft are too, but are also criminal acts.
dedalus on May 28, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Which means nothing but anecdotes, not exactly something to base law on.
Esthier on May 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Is the argument that homosexuality is genetic? If so, wouldn’t that gene be eliminated from the gene pool in a very short amount of time?
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Based on Olsen’s logic anyone should be able to “marry” anyone, regardless of anything. The Polygamists will be next in line and the pedophiles are waiting in the wings too. They are all making the same argument which is that their sexual preferences and desires are involuntary.
I guess I would wonder what other urges could be legitimized in this manner? I suppose we are all victims of our own psyches. We are heading down a road where not only should every urge we have be followed, but promoted and legitimized under the law.
Research has shown the optimal family unit for raising children and a healthy society is a male/female union. Children benefit from both a mother and a father. Of course that is not always possible but do we really want to knowingly PROMOTE the opposite of that?
Liberals always say that conservatives are anti-science. I don’t remember my biology teacher telling me that the anus was a sexual or reproductive organ. Male homosexuals engage in acts that have known increased health risks due to the misuse of these organs. Their life span is much shorter, their suicide rate higher. How is society served by mainstreaming this behavior and in fact putting it on par with a heterosexual lifestyle?
When gay sex ed becomes part of the curriculum in every school will children be warned of the increased risk of STD transmission that engaging in homosexual activity causes? I seriously doubt it.
echosyst on May 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM
They sure are, but children can’t consent and homosexuality is not illegal.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Yet we treat people who are pedophiles in an attempt to “cure” them of their pedophilic tendencies; it is believe they CAN be cured.
Could we not treat homosexuals in the same way?
Bishop on May 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I’ve never seen anybody spell “no” with so many ignorantly aranged letters like you do.
TMK on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM
It’s better to say that they don’t cause harm to anyone else, because homosexuality was at one point as well.
Esthier on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Each situation was different. Much of the Little Rock Nine confrontation was driven by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, who was a politician who knew how to use race resentment to get elected. In fact the Little Rock school board already had a workable desegregation plan for the ’57 school year before Faubus butted in and forced the historic state federal showdown. Virigina was much more serious about keeping schools segregated as part of the Massive Resistance program and one of the tricks was closing down schools. Cases there were litigated for years. The Prince Edward County schools were closed in 1959 and finally ordered reopened in 1964.
Ted Torgerson on May 28, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Yet
Sure. Some cultures are cool with that, and let’s be real, it’s a conceivable conclusion if the USA someday recognizes polygamists the same way we recognize race, gender, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation.
That’s not something I’m comfortable with but I’d rather have that then not allow homosexual couples who love each other other to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I don’t believe they can be cured. They can only control their urges. We could treat homosexuals the same way, but we don’t because it’s between consenting adults and homosexuality is not illegal.
Proud Rino on May 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Yeah, I’m sure the existing laws will take care of those occurrences. Changing the name from “marriage” to “civil union” will just make it a contract like any other.
AbaddonsReign on May 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »