As E.D. notes, Ted Olson will probably be called a RINO after this appearance on Fox News Sunday. Here’s what it takes: believing in the Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment, and an independent judiciary. It’s worth watching just to see him demolish Chris Wallace’s “but you’re a conservative!” questions, including one about how he could possibly agree with Hollywood Liberal Rob Reiner.
Gay Rights are Human Rights
Lies Lies Lies, Yeah!
Watch Tony Perkins lie through his teeth on CBS, and then watch David Boies flat-out call him a liar:
Why doesn’t this happen more often? It is so easy to do. When someone is lying, you simply call them a liar, so there is no confusion among the viewing audience.
Open Thread: “Sanctity” — Not the Same As “Sanctimony”, Professor Gingrich
Thanks to commentor Sly for highlighting Tom Scocca’s “Shameless or Fearless” post:
Newt Gingrich would like you to know, via the Newt Gingrich Twitter feed, that you can find his thoughts on the Proposition 8 ruling at Newt.org. Here they are:
__
Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
__
“An outrageous disrespect” is a little grammatically shaky for a scholar and published author. Still, unlike Sarah Palin’s sanitized Facebook feed, Newt.org doesn’t seem to mind a little dissent. Or a lot of it…
__
Newt Gingrich is unafraid to face his critics. That or he has a lazy webmaster. Either way, right now, the top-rated comment on Ginrgich’s Prop 8 postâliked by 49 Newt.org readersâis“Which one of your multiple marriages was the most sacred to you?”
Didn’t have the patience to register myself, but right now there are 330 comments on that Newt.org thread, and counting…
Open Thread: “Sanctity” — Not the Same As “Sanctimony”, Professor GingrichPost + Comments (47)
Ever heard the term RINO?
Ted Olson, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the recently overturned Prop 8 trial, is going to be on Fox News Sunday. Andrew Sullivan writes:
That should be interesting. Kudos to Fox for acknowledging that many principled conservatives support full civil equality for gay citizens. That may come as a shock to some of their viewers.
First of all, Fox is most certainly not acknowledging the fact that there are âmany principled conservativesâ who support marriage equality. Theyâre bringing Olson on because heâll draw fire and because itâs what news organizations do when they can get a ratings bump from a controversial figure in a controversial story.
And the viewers? Will they be âshockedâ that a âprincipled conservativeâ supports marriage equality? Of course not. Thereâs an easy remedy for all un-orthodox thinking on the right. If Ted Olson isnât already considered a Republican In Name Only, he soon will be.
Speaking of Fox News, this Laurah Ingraham appearance on Colbertâs show is pretty great. But not as great as Andy Schlafleyâs.
A quick note on Prop 8
Time will tell where all this goes, but for now the overturning of Proposition 8 is a huge victory for civil rights and for civil equality in this country. Whether or not a victory by popular ballot would have been better or more democratic is a fair question, and others are right to point out that thereâs always the possibility of backlash â but when it all comes down, a minority group of Americans are now viewed as equal citizens under the law in California. And thatâs a good thing no matter how you spin it.
Meanwhile more gay couples will get married, more people will become familiar with these couples and will start to grow more comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. American culture will continue its inexorable shift.
Framing
This particular story isn’t online, but on the front page of the Wisconsin State Journal (a surprisingly good little newspaper with a substantial number of well written stories), they describe the Prop. 8 ruling with the following headline:
“Judge affirms rights of gays”
Not only is that different from every other headline or story I’ve seen on the matter, which inevitably blare “Judge strikes down ban” or some variation, but this seems more accurate, particularly if you read the following portion of the ruling that Orin Kerr highlighted:
The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spousesâ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffsâ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses;they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage, Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is âa coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.â Griswold, 381 US at 486. Plaintiffsâ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffsâ genders relative to one another prevent California from giving their relationships due recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffsâ objective as âthe right to same-sex marriageâ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy ââ namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
I think it would be wise to adopt the language of the Wisconsin State Journal. We did not strike down a ban, we affirmed the rights of our fellow citizens. Gays (and whoever else society decides to bully next) aren’t asking for any special rights. They just want the same rights everyone else enjoys, and our laws exist to make sure that that is the case. These are fundamental principles that really state who we are as a people, much as the Cordoba mosque issue struck at our core principles.
It’s just another example of how perverse Republicanism and “conservatism” have become that they want to strike at the heart of who we are as a people for little more than short term political gain.
A song I heard about same sex marriage
I don’t usually go for the Lilith Fair type stuff, but this song is very sweet.