Ted Olson Defends California Gay Marriage Ruling On Fox News: 'Would You Like Fox's Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?'

Think Progress:

This morning, Ted Olson -- the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore -- appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.

Read the whole story: Think Progress

Comments

[JaCar]

12:42 AM on 08/26/2010

When will the "right" wake up and realize they're being manipulated by communist China's greatest propaganda tool, Fox? The GOP through Fox is bent on destroying America and moving all jobs to China.

Let me connect the dots for you: Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp and Fox News. His young wife is from communist China. Rupert is a doddering old man of weakened intellect, who has allowed his wife, ingrained and trained by China's communist government, to dictate the direction of Fox. Why else would Fox be such fans of big business' continued push to relocate jobs to China? Why else would Fox promote the start of a war based on a lie, which the Chinese government has lent the U.S. billions of dollars to fund? Why else would Fox promote the Bush tax cuts during war time, if not to insure our continued reliance on loans from communist China? Why did Fox dedicate only 10 minutes of News Coverage to the end of major combat operations in Iraq and the return of our troops? Because this is not what Fox and Beijing want to happen! They want to keep us at war and poor! The right and Fox insist on weakening our federal government and infrastructure, making OUR government the enemy?! A weak federal government is EXACTLY what Beijing wants for the U.S. in order to dominate the 21st century.

Beck, Ducey, Hannity and the rest of the shills on Fox are communist China's tools for America's ruination!

[QuietLightTraveler]

03:35 PM on 08/23/2010

Fox doesn't deserve the right of free press because it exploits its first ammendment right to spread lies and political propaganda/ campaigning, and not news.

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:10 AM on 08/16/2010

The hate from anti-marriage equality folks here is palpable. Had we lost you would have been telling us "Get over it!" or "better luck next time". Can't lose gracefully, can you? BTW, the comment about a motorcycle wanting to be a car is specious. We are not inanimate objects--we are HUMAN BEINGS and should ALL have the same rights, including the right to LEGALLY marry the one we love.

I am so glad that Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies were on our side. A lot of folks didn't trust Mr. Olson, but apparently he definitely has his heart and soul in this fight. Thank you so much, Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies...oh, and Judge Walker, too!

[scottyknows]

09:58 PM on 08/13/2010

I suppose if we didn't have a Constitutional amendment already spelling out the right to free speech, it would have to be put up for a vote, state by state.

As there is no Constitutional right of marriage, it must be decided state by state.

Guess what? In 44 out of 44 states where people were allowed to vote on homosexual marriage, they all voted overwhelmingly NO.

California twice. Guess you're convincing nobody but gay judges.

[Fogy]

02:36 AM on 08/14/2010

You need some Constitution 101, as do all the voting bigots. One simply can't vote away fundamental rights. Much as you'd like to impose your small-mindedness on others, the Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote. Just try to argue it is. I'll wait.

So, having established that statistically there are more ignorant people voting than not, what's your next point? Perhaps that marriage isn't a fundamental right? Fourteen Supreme Court rulings say you'd be wrong about that, and I'll wager they would know better than you. I'll preempt your attempt to contrast black citizenship or women's suffrage to gay marriage by refering back to my post you commented on earlier. If you can't find it or remember, just ask. I'll be glad to remind you.

So, in summary; marriage is a fundamental right that can't be voted on, and you think a very conservative judge not allowing a mob to violate the Constitution is because he's gay.

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:12 AM on 08/16/2010

Wish I could fan ya again, Fogy, but I did fave you. I am so sick of that argument. If African-Americans had to wait for their rights state by state, they would STILL be waiting.

[foodchain11]

03:33 PM on 08/12/2010

women were not allowed to own property until recently, or vote. Separate but equal segregated our schools and towns. People are equal. It will be great fun to watch SCOTUS if this moves before them.

[Guitanguran]

11:57 PM on 08/09/2010

Tsk.

The problem with all of this...is this:

Say the motorcycle lobby in the state of Denial, for whatever reason, wanted motorcycles to be registered the same as cars, in effect making them "cars". The car lobby (there's more of them, you know) objects and passes a constitutional amendment saying that only cars can be registered as cars. As a practical matter, it's pretty obvious that cars are cars and motorcycles are motorcycles, but the the motorcycle lobby forced the issue, alas.

Appealing to the DMV, the motorcycle lobby brings in experts that say that irreparable harm is being done to motorcycles because that aren't registered as cars, even though they're not cars.
The judge then says, for all intents and purposes, motorcycles and cars are identical in form and function; therefore, all motorcycles shall henceforth be registered as cars and henceforth called 'cars'.

A motorcycle can never be a car.

[Bob Kellerman]

02:15 AM on 08/10/2010

A motorcycle can never be a car.

NO, IT CANNONT -- BUT I CAN PARK IT IN YOUR SPACE

[ez duz it]

08:09 AM on 08/10/2010

Hi, Bob_Kellerman--

What a phenomenal retort! I've been loving your comments, here...

"Fanned and Faved"

--ez

[foodchain11]

03:25 PM on 08/12/2010

fanned alread but faved for that. Wow, a neo-con car, never thought I'd see the day.

[Brad Severance]

06:52 PM on 08/10/2010

It's an analogy, but is it useful.

In my mind, I feel it is more applicable to suggest that the motorcycle lobby in the state of "Common Sense" wants motorcycles to be registered as VEHICLES.

The car lobby objects because it feels only cars are VEHICLES.

The motorcycle lobby brings in its expert, Ted Olsen, to argue, that just because the car lobby defines a VEHICLE as having four wheels, motorcycles also, like their four-wheeled counterparts, transport people, and that under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, they also deserve to registered as VEHICLES.

[songz4u]

08:40 PM on 08/10/2010

This analogy makes much more sense than that other user.

A vehicle is a vehicle haha. Love it.

[Guitanguran]

12:00 AM on 08/11/2010

Well, no.

It would be one thing to just want to be registered as a vehicle. They already have that.

Cars. Don't. Care.

Motorcycles don't want to be just 'vehicles. They want to be called cars. They want the same exact registration as a car, irrespective of the number of wheels or seats or any other differences in form and function. The DMV guy already said there was no difference, even if the differences are obvious.

Motorcycles can never be cars.

[PC Contrarian]

06:19 PM on 08/09/2010

Ted makes a compelling argument.
But the one issue he and others avoid is:
"What comes next? What will be the next area to champion for marriage equality?"

The same argument he and others make for gay marriage can be made for polygamy.
I predict that polygamists will use gay marriage as both a stepping stone and a legal model for repealing laws that prohibit polygamy.

It is also something that most people won't find objectionable, once gay marriage has become acceptable.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, just that the arguments for one applies to the other.

[antaeus]

06:54 PM on 08/09/2010

You represent anxiety searching for a non-existing problem. The day when there are millions of polygamists clamoring for a hearing is the day we can begin to consider that scenario.

Plural marriage is typically experienced as an adjunct to pseudo-religious observation and is, in its practice, inherently unequal, with serious questions regarding the consent of all parties. It is a practice that cannot be compared to the marriages of adult same-sex couples--equals who are freely entering into a fully consensual relationship.

[Bob Kellerman]

09:55 PM on 08/09/2010

I doubt you convinced the fool

[NameUnknown]

10:07 PM on 08/12/2010

This is all so shortsighted. What about when the aliens come to Earth and want to have polygamist, homosexual, bisexual, marriage with trees and motorcycles? THEN WHAT?!!

[SHM]

03:03 AM on 08/10/2010

http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=151

[vippy]

04:40 PM on 08/09/2010

Why are we talking about this subject at all at this time? Is the USA the only country behind the Arab World that is so far backwards and out of touch that this is still in the news. OMG there is no help for us, let us admit, we are behind the moon! I am thinking by discussing this, and yes, many understand this subject, they will use it as a diversion from more pressing matters.

[JShankel]

05:07 PM on 08/09/2010

Actually, the US is toward the high end of the bell curve on this issue. 10 countries worldwide recognize same-sex marriage: Norway, Canada, South Africa (yeah, South Frickin' Africa...I know), Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, The Netherlands and Iceland and Argentina.

Every other country in the world disallows it, but it is legal in 5 US states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa (yeah, I know, Iowa) and Vermont.

So that puts us behind the big 10, but 10% ahead of everybody else.

[Bob Kellerman]

09:56 PM on 08/09/2010

Being ahead of Swaziland does not send me

[shroggle]

12:24 AM on 08/11/2010

You also forgot the 3 states that don't allow same-sex marriage, but recognize (and give benefits to) same-sex marriages performed in other states.

[JShankel]

05:08 PM on 08/09/2010

Forgot New Hampshire.

[blukazoo]

04:33 PM on 08/09/2010

For me, the strangest part of this story is that it's reasonable republicans pushing this issue forward. Makes me think of the days before the party was so beholden to the religious right...

[JShankel]

10:10 PM on 08/10/2010

Well, sure. Reasonable liberals have pushed it as far as we can on our own.

But what's coming to light here is that this isn't a left/right issue. It's a libertarian/authoritarian issue.

Left libertarians and right libertarians can agree that we don't want either side making any unnecessary rules.

[nice2blucky]

03:09 PM on 08/09/2010

The idea of the likes of Ted Olsen speaking on behalf of anyone other than the loony right doesn't seem good. Though, in many respects, he did well.

It concerns me that FoxNews' neo-con surrogates are being employed to speak on behalf of progressive issues. I definitely don't trust their motives.

My guess is that, before Fox's broadcasting license comes up for renewal, they will have framed it as a fundamental right that they have one.

Trusting neo-cons, such as Olsen or Joe Scarborough -- who played the dutiful political hack as a Republican Congressman, only to soften his idealogical stances, as well as occasionally calling out Republicans on hypocrisy, feigned outrage, etc. for his MSNBC TV show -- to speak out on issues contrary to the neo-con agenda is problematic.

The idea that these people actually get it, without ulterior motives, and are worthy purveyors of truth, and as importantly, that they can be trusted in the future, is unlikely.

In Ted Olsen's defense, when it came to Guantanamo detainee rights and the public interest served in giving detainees proper and vigorous defenses, he spoke well, publicly and forcefully in opposition to many on the right.

But when the time is right, when everyone starts to accept the new, sensible version, they will be called upon to play that old familiar role.

And in their new roles, as reasoned and reasonable, with their most sensible and truly concerned and contemplative voices, they'll start parroting neo-con talking points.

[Jmz4gtu]

05:04 PM on 08/09/2010

Or he could honestly hold conservative principles and not be the agent of a neo-con conspiracy.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

05:17 PM on 08/09/2010

yeah right. Ask him about repealing the voting rights act or the 14th amendment. Leave it to the gays to get in bed with the enemy. Because it proved to be expeditious. This is why president Obama has to placate the far right because at the end of the day most conservatives are white and so are most progressives and he has to respond to the whims and cries of the Majority....immigration, marijuana use, prison sentencing...For crying out loud the crack vs cocaine sentencing went from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1...guess who still suffers more for the same crime...people of color and its 2010 not 1810. Thats why the majority of African Americans and other people of color are exhausted with mainsrtream most White American. Look at the health care debate mostly older scared whites who for the first time in their uneducated lives are feeling job insecurity and they are freaking out...while most other Americans have never experienced job security. lol

[JShankel]

05:10 PM on 08/09/2010

"The idea of the likes of Ted Olsen speaking on behalf of anyone other than the loony right doesn't seem good. Though, in many respects, he did well."

Only Nixon can go to China. Same sex marriage IS a conservative value and we should embrace any conservative who's willing to say so.

In 10 years time, conservatives will be taking credit for same-sex marriage and claiming that liberals are the ones who stood in its way.

For a reference on this, see "Martin Luther King was a Republican, you know."

[JShankel]

02:27 PM on 08/09/2010

Only Hindus Should Be Allowed To Play Professional Baseball

(this post left empty as an exercise for the reader)

[JShankel]

02:22 PM on 08/09/2010

Smokers should not be allowed to be married. Children need to be raised by stable couples who have healthy lifestyles. We should at least put it to a vote. Everyone has the same right to quit smoking, so it's fair.

[JShankel]

02:21 PM on 08/09/2010

The People Should Be Allowed To Vote Whether Meat Eaters May Take Out Student Loans

1) Studies show that eating meat is much more harmful to the environment than eating vegetables

2) Everyone has the same right to become a vegetarian, so the law is fair

3) You can still take out private student loans, this is just about state-run loan programs

4) There's no inherent right to a student loan in the constitution, therefore states are free to discriminate in any way they want

5) Being a vegetarian is a superior lifestyle choice and people should be rewarded for choosing it

6) Only a vegetarian is qualified to rule on this issue

[klandish]

02:56 PM on 08/09/2010

You are sooooo fanned.

[blukazoo]

04:32 PM on 08/09/2010

Great post. New fan!

[openhand]

01:42 PM on 08/09/2010

Why is the GOP so worried?
because the under 30's voted in the last election, voted two thirds in favour of the democrats on this and other defining issues.

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/why-republicans-are-so-worried/

[JShankel]

01:31 PM on 08/09/2010

A Modest Proposal

States should be allowed to deny drivers licenses to left-handed people

1) Left handedness is not natural. Less than 10% of the population is left handed.

2) Though studies are uncertain, everyone knows left handed people are more clumsy and worse at hand-eye coordination in general. Doesn't matter if certain left handed people can manage to pass all the tests. Everyone just knows they're not good drivers.

3) There is no inherent right to drive in the constitution, so states are free to discriminate in any way they want.

4) Everyone has the same right to learn to be right-handed, so the law is fair. Left-handedness is a choice.

5) Traditionally, left-handed children were trained to use their right hands. Only in recent years have we normalized the perverted lifestyle choice of being a southpaw.

6) If states want to allow left-handed driving, that's fine, but it should be up to the voters. If 51% say lefties can't drive, that's the will of the people and it must be respected by judges even though that's not a judge's job and it doesn't say anything anywhere about considering the will of the people when ruling on a law.

7) Left handed judges must obviously recuse themselves from deciding on this case. Only a right-handed judge will have sufficient objectivity to determine what rights left handed people should or should not have.

[EmmaDarian]

02:00 PM on 08/09/2010

Fanned and faved (by a lefty, so less). And don't forget the Latin word for left-handed is "sinister."

[shroggle]

12:28 AM on 08/11/2010

Be careful on this one.

Growing up, my cousin was left handed... and attended church schools (and, they weren't catholic), where the teachers used to hit him with a ruler everytime he used his left hand, cause it was the sign of the devil.

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:25 AM on 08/16/2010

My spouse also got abused for being a lefty. What is with people that they cannot let people live?

Fanned AND faved!