Ted Olson: SCOTUS Has Passed The 'Pot Of No Return' On Gay Marriage
Contents:
- THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
- TED OLSON, GAY MARRIAGE'S UNLIKELY LEGAL WARRR
- TED OLSON: SCOTUS HAS PASSED THE 'POT OF NO RETURN' ON GAY MARRIAGE
- THE NSERVATIVE LEGAL STAR WHO IS FIGHTG FOR GAY MARRIAGE
- "THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE"?
- TED OLSON: 'POT OF NO RETURN' ON GAY MARRIAGE PASSED
- BH V. GORE FO JO TO FIGHT GAY MARRIAGE BAN
- . . . GAYS DERVE EQUAL RIGHTS
- DAVID BOI AND THEODORE OLSONIN ONE OF THE MOST UNLIKELY PARTNERSHIPS CIVIL-RIGHTS HISTORY, DAVID BOI AND TED OLSON TEAMED UP TO FIGHT CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE— ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. A YEAR AFTER THEIR VICTORY, WHICH THE SUPERLAWYERS HAVE CHRONICLED A NEW BOOK, LNEL BARBER RELLS WHAT BROUGHT THE POLIL OPPOS (AND OIME BATANTS) TOGETHER.BY LNEL BARBERPHOTOGRAPHY BY ANNIE LEIBOVZJUNE 17, 2014SAVE THIS STORYSAVESAVE THIS STORYSAVETHEY ARE AMERI’S ODD UPLE: TWO SUPERLAWYERS, ONE DEMOCRATIC, THE OTHER REPUBLIN, WHO TEAMED UP TO OVERTURN PROPOSN 8, CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, A SUPREME COURT LG WHICH MA CIVIL-RIGHTS HISTORY.DAVID BOI AND THEODORE B. “TED” OLSON ARE LIVG PROOF THAT BIPARTISANSHIP IS NOT (YET) AD AND BURIED WASHGTON. BACK 2000, THEY FACED OFF BH V. GORE, WHICH CID THE ELECTN. NE YEARS LATER, THEY SET ASI THEIR PARTY ALLEGIANC FAVOR OF A MON PRCIPLE: THAT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LBIANS TO MARRY WAS NOT A LIBERAL OR NSERVATIVE ISSUE. IT WAS A BASIC HUMAN-RIGHTS ISSUE.LAST SUMMER, I HEARD FIRSTHAND THE STORY OF THEIR UNLIKELY PARTNERSHIP. A GROUP OF WERE CISG OFF THE AMALFI AST, ONE OF THE MOST STUNNG SEASP THE MEDERRANEAN. GOOD WE (ANOTHER MON BOI-OLSON E) FLOWED; SO DID THE POST-LUNCH NVERSATN. A FELLOW PASSENGER PRODD TED TO TELL HIS STORY. WHY TED, NOT DAVID? BEE TED IS A TE NSERVATIVE, A FORMER SOLICOR GENERAL UNR GEE W. BH. HIS JOURNEY FENSE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS NEVER GOG TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD.TED SPOKE A RICH BARONE WHICH MAND ATTENTN. REPUBLIN IENDS FOUND HIS CISN HARD TO SWALLOW. HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN IALLY WARY—UNTIL HE MET ONE SAME-SEX UPLE PARTICULAR AND FELT THEIR PA THE FACE OF DISCRIMATN. HE ED THAT WORD, “PA,” SEVERAL TIM. I REMEMBER, TOO, HIS CLOSG ARGUMENT: “THE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE LIFE AS CIZENS THE WAY THE RT OF DO.”DAVID’S ACUNT WAS MORE MATTER-OF-FACT: DISPASSNATE ANALYSIS MIXED WH REMORSELS LOGIC AND A FAMED IRON WILL. THIS IS THE MAN WHO OVERME DYSLEXIA TO BEE ONE OF THE TOP TRIAL LAWYERS THE UNTRY, THE SUCCSFUL FENR OF CBS THE WTMORELAND LIBEL SE, THE SURGE OF MICROSOFT, AND A NOTED PHILANTHROPIST, WHO HAS ENDOWED NE CHAIRS AT UNIVERSI OM N.Y.U. TO YALE.SOMEHOW DAVID AND TED HAVE FOUND TIME THEIR PACKED SCHL TO WRE THEIR STORY A NEW BOOK—REEMG THE DREAM: THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALY. (HBO’S DOCUMENTARY ON THE TRIAL, THE CASE AGAST 8, IS ALSO OUT THIS MONTH.)LAWYERS OFTEN GET A HARD TIME AMERI. BUT THE SE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SO LONG A TABOO, TWO DISTGUISHED ATTORNEYS TURNED OUT TO BE WAY AHEAD OF THE POLICIANS. THAT’S A TRIBUTE TO DAVID AND TED—AND TO THE VIBRANCY OF AMERIN MOCRACY.MOST POPULARTHE TAN SUBMERSIBLE DISASTER WAS YEARS THE MAKG, NEW DETAILS REVEALBY SAN CASEYMELANIA’S TAKE ON DONALD TMP’S FOURTH INDICTMENT IS BASILLY “SUCKS TO BE YOU, PAL”: REPORTBY BS LEVTE CRIME, TE FAH: THE SERIAL KILLER AND THE TEXAS MOM WHO STOPPED HIMBY JULIE MILLERLNEL BARBER
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
Theodore B. Olson’s cisn to file a lawsu challengg California’s ban on gay marriage has stirred up spicn on both sis. * theodore olson gay marriage *
My answer to this seemg nundm rts on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histori, viewpots, and trsic characteristics, and on my rejectn of what I see as superficially appealg but ultimately false perceptns about our Constutn and s protectn of equaly and fundamental of my fellow nservativ have an almost knee-jerk hostily toward gay marriage.
TED OLSON, GAY MARRIAGE'S UNLIKELY LEGAL WARRR
Olson beme a nservative legal star 2000, after he succsfully argued Gee W. Bh's se before the Supreme Court Bh v. Gore. Now, he has raised eyebrows on the left and right by passnately reprentg those who want to overturn Proposn 8, California's ban on gay marriage. * theodore olson gay marriage *
The fact that dividuals who happen to be gay want to share this val social stutn is evince that nservative ials enjoy wispread acceptance.
TED OLSON: SCOTUS HAS PASSED THE 'POT OF NO RETURN' ON GAY MARRIAGE
* theodore olson gay marriage *
Var feral and state laws have acrd certa rights and privileg to gay and lbian upl, but the protectns vary dramatilly at the state level, and nearly universally ny te equaly to gays and lbians who wish to marry.
Gays and lbians have always been among , formg a part of our society, and they have lived as upl our neighborhoods and muni. California and many other stat have allowed gays and lbians to form domtic partnerships (or civil unns) wh most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Likewise, allowg gays and lbians to marry someone of the same sex will not disurage heterosexuals om marryg a person of the oppose sex.
Another argument, vaguer and even ls persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow do harm to heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally regnize the relatnships and embrace the rights of gays and lbians to marry and bee full and equal members of our matter what you thk of homosexualy, is a fact that gays and lbians are members of our fai, clubs, and workplac. Even those whose relig nvictns preclu endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "liftyle" should regnize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatizatn and unequal we refe to acrd this stat to gays and lbians, we disurage them om formg the same relatnships we enurage for others.
THE NSERVATIVE LEGAL STAR WHO IS FIGHTG FOR GAY MARRIAGE
The nservative legal star who is fightg for gay marriage * theodore olson gay marriage *
I unrstand, but reject, certa relig teachgs that nounce homosexualy as morally wrong, illegimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exceptn to those who argue that same-sex relatnships should be disuraged by society and law. Science has tght , even if history has not, that gays and lbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rt of choose to be heterosexual. I do not believe that our society n ever live up to the promise of equaly, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursu of happs, until we stop vid discrimatn on the basis of sexual we are born heterosexual, is not unual for to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberratnal and threateng.
I am nvced that Amerins will be equally proud when we no longer discrimate agast gays and lbians and wele them to our society. In fact, the California attorney general has nced the unnstutnaly of Proposn 8, and the cy of San Francis has joed our se to fend the rights of gays and lbians to be married. Evans, the Uned Stat Supreme Court stck down a popularly adopted Colorado nstutnal amendment that whdrew the rights of gays and lbians that state to the protectn of anti-discrimatn laws.
If all cizens have a nstutnal right to marry, if state laws that whdraw legal protectns of gays and lbians as a class are unnstutnal, and if private, timate sexual nduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constutn, there is very ltle left on which opponents of same-sex marriage n rely. As Jtice Anton Slia, who dissented the Lawrence se, poted out, "[W]hat [remag] jtifitn uld there possibly be for nyg the benefs of marriage to homosexual upl exercisg '[t]he liberty protected by the Constutn'?
"THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE"?
The nservative lawyer who helped put Gee W. Bh the Whe Hoe is workg to legalize gay marriage. Is his wife rponsible? * theodore olson gay marriage *
Fally, California regniz 18, 000 same-sex marriag that took place the months between the state Supreme Court's lg that upheld gay-marriage rights and the cisn of California's cizens to whdraw those rights by enactg Proposn there are now three class of Californians: heterosexual upl who n get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex upl who nnot get married but n live together domtic partnerships; and same-sex upl who are now married but who, if they divorce, nnot remarry.
TED OLSON: 'POT OF NO RETURN' ON GAY MARRIAGE PASSED
A hearg the marriage se, filed on behalf of two gay upl, is schled for Wednday feral urt San Francis.
BH V. GORE FO JO TO FIGHT GAY MARRIAGE BAN
Olson clared that California’s ban is “utterly whout jtifitn” and stigmatiz gay men and lbians as “send-class and unworthy. Olson was asked if the Jtice Department uld dismiss a prosecutor for beg gay, he wrote that was “improper to ny employment or to termate anyone on the basis of sexual nduct. Olson said he saw them as polil half-measur that ntued to treat gay men and lbians as separate and unequal.
. . . GAYS DERVE EQUAL RIGHTS
Over dner at a Capol Hill rtrant, he argued that marriage was an sential ponent of happs that gay upl had every right to enjoy, relled David Fm, a nservative thor and former Bh speechwrer.
DAVID BOI AND THEODORE OLSONIN ONE OF THE MOST UNLIKELY PARTNERSHIPS CIVIL-RIGHTS HISTORY, DAVID BOI AND TED OLSON TEAMED UP TO FIGHT CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE— ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. A YEAR AFTER THEIR VICTORY, WHICH THE SUPERLAWYERS HAVE CHRONICLED A NEW BOOK, LNEL BARBER RELLS WHAT BROUGHT THE POLIL OPPOS (AND OIME BATANTS) TOGETHER.BY LNEL BARBERPHOTOGRAPHY BY ANNIE LEIBOVZJUNE 17, 2014SAVE THIS STORYSAVESAVE THIS STORYSAVETHEY ARE AMERI’S ODD UPLE: TWO SUPERLAWYERS, ONE DEMOCRATIC, THE OTHER REPUBLIN, WHO TEAMED UP TO OVERTURN PROPOSN 8, CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, A SUPREME COURT LG WHICH MA CIVIL-RIGHTS HISTORY.DAVID BOI AND THEODORE B. “TED” OLSON ARE LIVG PROOF THAT BIPARTISANSHIP IS NOT (YET) AD AND BURIED WASHGTON. BACK 2000, THEY FACED OFF BH V. GORE, WHICH CID THE ELECTN. NE YEARS LATER, THEY SET ASI THEIR PARTY ALLEGIANC FAVOR OF A MON PRCIPLE: THAT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LBIANS TO MARRY WAS NOT A LIBERAL OR NSERVATIVE ISSUE. IT WAS A BASIC HUMAN-RIGHTS ISSUE.LAST SUMMER, I HEARD FIRSTHAND THE STORY OF THEIR UNLIKELY PARTNERSHIP. A GROUP OF WERE CISG OFF THE AMALFI AST, ONE OF THE MOST STUNNG SEASP THE MEDERRANEAN. GOOD WE (ANOTHER MON BOI-OLSON E) FLOWED; SO DID THE POST-LUNCH NVERSATN. A FELLOW PASSENGER PRODD TED TO TELL HIS STORY. WHY TED, NOT DAVID? BEE TED IS A TE NSERVATIVE, A FORMER SOLICOR GENERAL UNR GEE W. BH. HIS JOURNEY FENSE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS NEVER GOG TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD.TED SPOKE A RICH BARONE WHICH MAND ATTENTN. REPUBLIN IENDS FOUND HIS CISN HARD TO SWALLOW. HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN IALLY WARY—UNTIL HE MET ONE SAME-SEX UPLE PARTICULAR AND FELT THEIR PA THE FACE OF DISCRIMATN. HE ED THAT WORD, “PA,” SEVERAL TIM. I REMEMBER, TOO, HIS CLOSG ARGUMENT: “THE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE LIFE AS CIZENS THE WAY THE RT OF DO.”DAVID’S ACUNT WAS MORE MATTER-OF-FACT: DISPASSNATE ANALYSIS MIXED WH REMORSELS LOGIC AND A FAMED IRON WILL. THIS IS THE MAN WHO OVERME DYSLEXIA TO BEE ONE OF THE TOP TRIAL LAWYERS THE UNTRY, THE SUCCSFUL FENR OF CBS THE WTMORELAND LIBEL SE, THE SURGE OF MICROSOFT, AND A NOTED PHILANTHROPIST, WHO HAS ENDOWED NE CHAIRS AT UNIVERSI OM N.Y.U. TO YALE.SOMEHOW DAVID AND TED HAVE FOUND TIME THEIR PACKED SCHL TO WRE THEIR STORY A NEW BOOK—REEMG THE DREAM: THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALY. (HBO’S DOCUMENTARY ON THE TRIAL, THE CASE AGAST 8, IS ALSO OUT THIS MONTH.)LAWYERS OFTEN GET A HARD TIME AMERI. BUT THE SE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SO LONG A TABOO, TWO DISTGUISHED ATTORNEYS TURNED OUT TO BE WAY AHEAD OF THE POLICIANS. THAT’S A TRIBUTE TO DAVID AND TED—AND TO THE VIBRANCY OF AMERIN MOCRACY.MOST POPULARTHE TAN SUBMERSIBLE DISASTER WAS YEARS THE MAKG, NEW DETAILS REVEALBY SAN CASEYMELANIA’S TAKE ON DONALD TMP’S FOURTH INDICTMENT IS BASILLY “SUCKS TO BE YOU, PAL”: REPORTBY BS LEVTE CRIME, TE FAH: THE SERIAL KILLER AND THE TEXAS MOM WHO STOPPED HIMBY JULIE MILLERLNEL BARBER
Proposn 8 created three class: straight upl who uld marry, gay men and lbians who had married the brief perd before the ban, and gay upl who wanted to marry but now uld not.
Sce sexual orientatn, unlike race, is not mentned the Constutn, the qutn is whether that right extends to gay men and lbians.
The first is a 1996 cisn which six of the ne jtic, cg equal protectn grounds, stck down an amendment to the Colorado Constutn that stripped gay rints of existg civil rights protectns. Olson argu, is siar to Proposn 8’s negatg the California Supreme Court cisn that regnized the rights of gay upl to marry. Not only did the majory fd that Texas had no ratnal basis to t to private sexual behavr protected by the Constutn’s due procs clse, also clared that gay men and lbians should be ee to enter to relatnships their hom and “still reta their digny.