Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is no conservative! He probably has a few homosexual family members hiding in their closets at home. No SPECIAL rights for BEHAVIOR!
LOL. Ted Olson NOT a conservative? LOL
Is now a good time to tell you that his wife was murdered on one of the planes in 9/11?
Prop 8 supporters are equivalent to Obamacare supporters. They approve of special federal tax codes reserved for straight individuals which is essentially a tax for being gay and wanting to marry.
Is now a good time to tell you that his wife was murdered on one of the planes in 9/11?
Prop 8 supporters are equivalent to Obamacare supporters. They approve of special federal tax codes reserved for straight individuals which is essentially a tax for being gay and wanting to marry.
Thanks for reminding us, yes, she was killed, my husband worked with her in DC in the 80s.
You are right, he isn't a conservative and I may not toally agree with everything he said, but this does show, FOX isn't totally right wing as the libs would like the world to believe. The interesting thing, I bet most of those libs have never watched FOX or only watched one or two progams.
Ted Olsen is called conservative because the left leaners say that he was the reason the Supreme Court "gave" the election of 2000 to Bush. He did represent Bush in that trial but now he is putting on a show because he knows he is going to be in the Supreme Court with the gays. He is a fine actor and is doing just that now. I think he is a trial lawyer making a living the way they do it.
Ted Olsen is called conservative because the left leaners say that he was the reason the Supreme Court "gave" the election of 2000 to Bush. He did represent Bush in that trial but now he is putting on a show because he knows he is going to be in the Supreme Court with the gays. He is a fine actor and is doing just that now. I think he is a trial lawyer making a living the way they do it.
No, Ted Olson is called a conservative because he is a conservative.
Which is why he served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan Administration, and then served as one of President Reagan's lawyers during the Iran-Contra affair. And it's why the Bush campaign turned to Olson during the Florida recount. And why President Bush nominated Olson to serve as Solicitor General. And why the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Olson in 2001.
He's called a conservative because he obviously is a conservative. And the fact that it upsets you that a conservative is loudly and effectively making the case that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional doesn't change the fact that he's a conservative.
Is now a good time to tell you that his wife was murdered on one of the planes in 9/11?
Not sure how that makes him conservative though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Prop 8 supporters are equivalent to Obamacare supporters. They approve of special federal tax codes reserved for straight individuals which is essentially a tax for being gay and wanting to marry.
A broad generalization. Many support prop 8 simply because of the historical definition of it. The issues of having or not having, taxes or not taxes are irrelevant.
While some may have objections to civil unions as well, the fact is that even when offered such with exactly the same benefits as marriage, they deny it.
This makes this an issue about changing the meaning of a word, nothing else. There is no "separate but equal" because marriage and civil unions are not the same thing which "separate but equal" implies.
Both serve similar purposes in result, but marriage has a contingency that could produce progeny to which the definition and legal aspects recognize and adapt for.
There is no component for such in civil unions because the partnership can never produce something between them. There is no physical union to bring together something, a contribution between two which produces a single entity to which can then lay claim to both of the parents through blood. Since this can "never" happen, it makes sense that one is treated differently legally than the other. Merging them into one definition only confuses things.
I fail to see how this is anything like "obamacare"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
