@Iconoclastocles Good points. A possible comparison: you are not born Christian, you choose to be Christian. My guess is Christians would reject not being allowed to marry because they have chosen to subscribe to the Christian faith. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Consenting adults in this country have the right to choose who they want to marry. (Note that I said CONSENTING ADULTS. Not donkeys or children for you slippery slopers out there).
AMEN!!! I hope all the usual Fox viewers actually saw this and learned something. To paraphrase THOMAS JEFFERSON! The rights of a minority should NEVER be up for a vote.
This is pretty cut and dry: denying ANYONE the right to marry is unconstitutional. I understand that certain groups (Christians) would like to deny some members of our country the right to marry, but to do so is a step towards fundamentalism. Most of the people in this country are here because their ancestors were being denied their basic rights due to fundamentalist governments. Jesus Christ does not trump the Constitution of the United States; the rights of ALL citizens are protected.
@jusitke07 That's why it's awesome! He is able to do what so many conservatives have been unable to do, put aside personal belief systems and look at what the Constitution and the legal framework of this country says about marriage. I actually have several conservative friends (one of whom is a pastor) who have told me that while they don't agree with the lifestyle, they are for gay marriage because they are against denying American citizens their constitutional rights.
Impressive! Ted Olson is so smart. I am so proud of him. I hope this video will be watched in every corner of the world and make people think about this issue.
@Fockersnextdoor sexual orientation is NOT a "life choice activity". People are born gay, same as people are born man, woman, white or black. That's precisely why denying gay people the right to marry whom they love is so wrong. Do you remember when precisely it was that you "chose" to be heterosexual?
However you feel about Bush v. Gore or conservatives in general, if you support marriage equality, you should be glad Ted Olson is on the case. The dude has mad skills as a lawyer and when this gets to the Supreme Court, you can bet he'll argue it brilliantly.
Wow, someone actually making sense on Fox News. This is a rarity indeed. I wonder if I'll see a flying pig next. Thanks to Ted Olson, that was very well said!
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
--Ayn Rand, the Republicans' hero. Of course, they're going to disregard her and the Constitution when it conflicts with their bigotry.
As any professor of law can tell you, "It doesn't matter whether a law was passed by Congress, a state legislature, a city council or the voters - it has to comply with the U.S. Constitution." --Erwin Chemerinsky. This would include DOMA, Prop. 8 and amendments to state constitutions. Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final say until it is overturned by amending the U.S. Constitution.
@auroralights100 Nope again. Currently those who support stopping the exclusion of gay families from the rights and protections of marriage hovers around the 50% mark nationally. And the trend is for us. All you need to do is look at the younger generation. Their support of marriage equality is well above 50%. Nothing lofty there. Just cold hard facts. For all your confused rhetoric, here you are NOT ignoring us. Why? Fear and denial. But hey, it's going to be okay. Breathe.
@auroralights100. If you had read Perry v. Schwarzenneger or even a brief news article about it you would know that the findings of fact tested on cross examination show that children are harmed by the ABSENCE of same-sex marriage, and not the other way around. This is because kids raised in same sex families are forced into second class status by the government.
....This should be required viewing for law students....The clarity of Mr. Olsen's answers were laymen enough for even someone like me to understand!....Those were hardball questions.
@auroralights100 "The DOMA stands and was passed unanimously." Apparently there is a new definition for the word "unanimous" considering the Senate vote was 85 to 14 and the House vote was 342 to 67. And people voted twice for Prop H8? Did the vote take place in Chicago? Your math is very interesting. By the way, exactly WHO was crying victim last week?
@auroralights100 hahaha man chill out! I really have no idea why people get so upset about this issue--if you think about it, it doesn't affect you unless you have some specific interest in it. I have always thought that that homophobic people like auroralights100 are people who secretly experience same-sex desire and don't want to admit it. It's ok auroralights100! We support you! And hey--now you can get married in California! Cheers!
The voters do not have the only or last word on marriage in the United States of America. The issue of same-sex marriage has been presented for the first time in federal court. Neither you nor I can predict the outcome.
Are you claiming to be the moderator of this page? I will certainly speak up when my fundamental rights are being violated and argued against.
@auroralights100 Nope. Your side had its chance to back up its vicious lies and anti-gay rhetoric with evidence. Yet, as David Boies said, your arguments just melt away upon the slightest cross examination. Fear and prejudice were put on trial and they lost. Gay and lesbian citizens will gain full equality under the law. Get used to that eventuality. Racist majorities were denied by courts their wish to exclude interracial couples from marrying. That is now happening for same-sex couples. :)
No, an American's fundamental rights are not up to the People's Voice. They depend on the Constitution. You are arguing for a "tyranny of the majority" that the Founders of the Constitution expressly rejected by providing a government with checks and balances. Arguing for civil unions is a "separate but equal" argument like racial segregation, already found unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.
Even arch-conservative Justice Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas stated that procreation is not necessary, "since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." Are you going to petition the government to prevent two older people from marrying? Procreation has never been required to marry. Traditional marriage has sometimes been found unconstitutional: first laws that made wives second class to husbands, then laws banning interracial marriage. Tradition changes.
"What we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to [marriage] to make all sorts of statements [in campaign literature and debates], but when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross examination, those opinions just melt away... We put fear and prejudice on trial and fear and prejudice lost." ~David Boies in response to Tony Perkins on CBS
Give factual evidence in a court of law that the particular discrimination you have in mind is necessary, then let's talk. The pro-Prop 8 lawyers failed to do so. Stating or believing that something is perverse is not enough for the law.
As a Libertarian, I agree with Ted Olson. For a same sex couple to be married does not in any way infringe upon my own rights or upon my marriage. In fact, I stand to benefit from it because I believe that marriage has a stabilizing effect on society: it promotes responsible behavior and the accumulation of wealth. The more stable households there are, the safer and more prosperous we all are.
Mr. Olson is impressive. I imagine a lot of FNS's viewers will disagree with him in principal, but his legal justification for overturning Prop 8 makes perfect sense. And yet, his conservatism shines through on the side of an argument many conservatives will take issue with. Once again, Chris Wallace comes through by asking the right questions that gets straight to the heart (and controversy) of the matter.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ted Olson's arguments support John Adam's quote. The law regards marriage as important to a stable society where religions and morality may flourish. If the voters can dictate that homosexuals are more or less moral or religious than other citizens without evidence produced in a court of law, then the government is violating the Constitution. There is also the little matter of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War and did not exist in 1798.
thank heaven someone has brains
nsdtr01 1 year ago
Boy, conservatives sure do go after their own when they fall off the bandwagon!
abashford 1 year ago
Comment removed
abashford 1 year ago
Ted, thank you, you are a true Libertarian!
ptu1969 1 year ago
@Iconoclastocles Good points. A possible comparison: you are not born Christian, you choose to be Christian. My guess is Christians would reject not being allowed to marry because they have chosen to subscribe to the Christian faith. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Consenting adults in this country have the right to choose who they want to marry. (Note that I said CONSENTING ADULTS. Not donkeys or children for you slippery slopers out there).
MzAngieG 1 year ago 2
@MzAngieG - word, I think between you and Icono this is pretty well settled.
DidMadeSaidThought 1 year ago
AMEN!!! I hope all the usual Fox viewers actually saw this and learned something. To paraphrase THOMAS JEFFERSON! The rights of a minority should NEVER be up for a vote.
hobartzoo 1 year ago
YAY FOR GAY MARRIAGE
TMBrd89 1 year ago
Olson rocks! Its judicial responsibility, not activism!
yuumeko 1 year ago
@auroralights100 lol nice try
white3511 1 year ago
"We do NOT put The Bill of Rights to a vote." Discrimination is wrong, period... I love the US Constitution... God Blessed America. The system works.
pbanfield 1 year ago
This is pretty cut and dry: denying ANYONE the right to marry is unconstitutional. I understand that certain groups (Christians) would like to deny some members of our country the right to marry, but to do so is a step towards fundamentalism. Most of the people in this country are here because their ancestors were being denied their basic rights due to fundamentalist governments. Jesus Christ does not trump the Constitution of the United States; the rights of ALL citizens are protected.
nycstreetpoet 1 year ago
This is weird....a Conservative lawyer fighting for the marriage rights of American Homosexuals.
jusitke07 1 year ago
@jusitke07 That's why it's awesome! He is able to do what so many conservatives have been unable to do, put aside personal belief systems and look at what the Constitution and the legal framework of this country says about marriage. I actually have several conservative friends (one of whom is a pastor) who have told me that while they don't agree with the lifestyle, they are for gay marriage because they are against denying American citizens their constitutional rights.
MzAngieG 1 year ago
Impressive! Ted Olson is so smart. I am so proud of him. I hope this video will be watched in every corner of the world and make people think about this issue.
raymond1001 1 year ago
The wikipedia entry on "pwnage" should have a link to this video.
awrezy 1 year ago 3
This guy is impressive. I'm surprised Chris Wallace kept on interrogating him - he easily handled his questions.
wwleslie 1 year ago
Why do they compare a persons skin color to a life choice activity?
Fockersnextdoor 1 year ago
@Fockersnextdoor sexual orientation is NOT a "life choice activity". People are born gay, same as people are born man, woman, white or black. That's precisely why denying gay people the right to marry whom they love is so wrong. Do you remember when precisely it was that you "chose" to be heterosexual?
troppofiato 1 year ago
@auroralights100 You have better things to do? The sheer volume of text you've laid out here strongly suggests otherwise.
yooootoooober 1 year ago
However you feel about Bush v. Gore or conservatives in general, if you support marriage equality, you should be glad Ted Olson is on the case. The dude has mad skills as a lawyer and when this gets to the Supreme Court, you can bet he'll argue it brilliantly.
blaarp 1 year ago 6
Wow, someone actually making sense on Fox News. This is a rarity indeed. I wonder if I'll see a flying pig next. Thanks to Ted Olson, that was very well said!
Lovologist7 1 year ago 4
This is the first time I'd have reason to thumb up a fox news video! Ted Olsen was awesome, and fox news behind the scenes was probably panicking LOL
IApprovedThisMessage 1 year ago 2
Ted Olson creamed the biased and bigoted FAUX News. He smeared that sweet common sense all up in their face. This is very entertaining!
CutieBabe25 1 year ago 2
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
--Ayn Rand, the Republicans' hero. Of course, they're going to disregard her and the Constitution when it conflicts with their bigotry.
Jujuman2003 1 year ago 2
I just love how the guy these guys interviewed was a Bush crony. At least that administration had SOME talent!
asianboywonder2312 1 year ago
@auroralights100:
As any professor of law can tell you, "It doesn't matter whether a law was passed by Congress, a state legislature, a city council or the voters - it has to comply with the U.S. Constitution." --Erwin Chemerinsky. This would include DOMA, Prop. 8 and amendments to state constitutions. Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final say until it is overturned by amending the U.S. Constitution.
russcnps 1 year ago 2
@auroralights100 Nope again. Currently those who support stopping the exclusion of gay families from the rights and protections of marriage hovers around the 50% mark nationally. And the trend is for us. All you need to do is look at the younger generation. Their support of marriage equality is well above 50%. Nothing lofty there. Just cold hard facts. For all your confused rhetoric, here you are NOT ignoring us. Why? Fear and denial. But hey, it's going to be okay. Breathe.
GayRightsMedia 1 year ago 4
@auroralights100. If you had read Perry v. Schwarzenneger or even a brief news article about it you would know that the findings of fact tested on cross examination show that children are harmed by the ABSENCE of same-sex marriage, and not the other way around. This is because kids raised in same sex families are forced into second class status by the government.
russcnps 1 year ago 4
This has to be the most silent, passive FUCK YOU ever whispered at Fox News and it's ignorant viewers.
brian2553 1 year ago
....This should be required viewing for law students....The clarity of Mr. Olsen's answers were laymen enough for even someone like me to understand!....Those were hardball questions.
hajqbvii 1 year ago
@auroralights100 "The DOMA stands and was passed unanimously." Apparently there is a new definition for the word "unanimous" considering the Senate vote was 85 to 14 and the House vote was 342 to 67. And people voted twice for Prop H8? Did the vote take place in Chicago? Your math is very interesting. By the way, exactly WHO was crying victim last week?
Dramphooey 1 year ago
@auroralights100 hahaha man chill out! I really have no idea why people get so upset about this issue--if you think about it, it doesn't affect you unless you have some specific interest in it. I have always thought that that homophobic people like auroralights100 are people who secretly experience same-sex desire and don't want to admit it. It's ok auroralights100! We support you! And hey--now you can get married in California! Cheers!
white3511 1 year ago 2
@auroralights100
Nice. I am impressed by all of the personal opinions you reel off, as if no factual evidence subject to cross examination is needed to back them up.
russcnps 1 year ago
@auroralights100:
The voters do not have the only or last word on marriage in the United States of America. The issue of same-sex marriage has been presented for the first time in federal court. Neither you nor I can predict the outcome.
Are you claiming to be the moderator of this page? I will certainly speak up when my fundamental rights are being violated and argued against.
russcnps 1 year ago
@auroralights100 Nope. Your side had its chance to back up its vicious lies and anti-gay rhetoric with evidence. Yet, as David Boies said, your arguments just melt away upon the slightest cross examination. Fear and prejudice were put on trial and they lost. Gay and lesbian citizens will gain full equality under the law. Get used to that eventuality. Racist majorities were denied by courts their wish to exclude interracial couples from marrying. That is now happening for same-sex couples. :)
GayRightsMedia 1 year ago 29
@GayRightsMedia , you have excellent points!
raymond1001 1 year ago
Comment removed
GayRightsMedia 1 year ago
@auroralights100:
No, an American's fundamental rights are not up to the People's Voice. They depend on the Constitution. You are arguing for a "tyranny of the majority" that the Founders of the Constitution expressly rejected by providing a government with checks and balances. Arguing for civil unions is a "separate but equal" argument like racial segregation, already found unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.
russcnps 1 year ago 4
Even arch-conservative Justice Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas stated that procreation is not necessary, "since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." Are you going to petition the government to prevent two older people from marrying? Procreation has never been required to marry. Traditional marriage has sometimes been found unconstitutional: first laws that made wives second class to husbands, then laws banning interracial marriage. Tradition changes.
russcnps 1 year ago
What a powerful interview!
joewilliamson09 1 year ago
Why exactly are we discussing gay marage and not the true threat... Gangs,Wallstreet,Corprate America and Rednecks?
Tsoiyona13 1 year ago
Quote of the day: We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote!
Realitytourist 1 year ago 26
"What we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to [marriage] to make all sorts of statements [in campaign literature and debates], but when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross examination, those opinions just melt away... We put fear and prejudice on trial and fear and prejudice lost." ~David Boies in response to Tony Perkins on CBS
GayRightsMedia 1 year ago 3
We SHOULD discriminate between health and perversion because we are human beings not some indifferent animals
Discrimination is a symptom of intelligence and is a virtue not a vice
Armando7654 1 year ago
@Armando7654
Give factual evidence in a court of law that the particular discrimination you have in mind is necessary, then let's talk. The pro-Prop 8 lawyers failed to do so. Stating or believing that something is perverse is not enough for the law.
russcnps 1 year ago
As a Libertarian, I agree with Ted Olson. For a same sex couple to be married does not in any way infringe upon my own rights or upon my marriage. In fact, I stand to benefit from it because I believe that marriage has a stabilizing effect on society: it promotes responsible behavior and the accumulation of wealth. The more stable households there are, the safer and more prosperous we all are.
white3511 1 year ago
Ted Olson is the man. I disagree with him on this issue; however, I got mad love for this guy. I'd want to be like . . . .
Zachw2007 1 year ago
Mr. Olson is impressive. I imagine a lot of FNS's viewers will disagree with him in principal, but his legal justification for overturning Prop 8 makes perfect sense. And yet, his conservatism shines through on the side of an argument many conservatives will take issue with. Once again, Chris Wallace comes through by asking the right questions that gets straight to the heart (and controversy) of the matter.
bnem44 1 year ago
@bnem44 :
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams--October 11, 1798
Itchhhh 1 year ago
Comment removed
russcnps 1 year ago
@ltchhhh:
Ted Olson's arguments support John Adam's quote. The law regards marriage as important to a stable society where religions and morality may flourish. If the voters can dictate that homosexuals are more or less moral or religious than other citizens without evidence produced in a court of law, then the government is violating the Constitution. There is also the little matter of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War and did not exist in 1798.
russcnps 1 year ago