How to dismantle conservative legal arguments on the Prop 8 ruling

August 9, 2010 at 7:54 am 124 comments

Cross-posted at my home blog,

by Adam Bink

Normally I wouldn’t inflate your blood pressure by asking you to watch FOX News, but this clip is not only tolerable, it’s kick-ass. Ted Olson gave a clinic on how to dismantle certain conservative legal arguments on Prop 8 yesterday on FOX News Sunday:

Partial highlights:

The full video can be found here.

Three key points Olson makes:

1. “Judicial activism” and the stupidity of that term. Olson echoes a point I made when the ruling came down. I wrote in response to NOM’s e-mail blast:

Of course, it’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.

Yesterday, when asked by Chris Wallace for a definition of judicial activism, Olson replied:

Most people use the term “judicial activism” to explain decisions they don’t like.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Ted.

2. Tyranny of the majority. Wallace keeps sputtering about 7 million people having voted the other way on this issue. In the first place, yeah, and 6.4 million voted for equality. We’re talking about a 52-48% decision, so it’s not like we’re a fringe minority here. But second, and the point Olson makes, is that millions of people also voted to enshrine discrimination on the basis of race into their state constitution in the 1960s, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. The point is that people vote for a lot of things. Doesn’t mean they’re always right. We have judges and separation of powers to ensure the Bill of Rights, and rights of the minority are protected.

3. State-by-state populism as a path to law, and that the right to same-sex marriage isn’t found in the Constitution. Wallace makes a (smart, for his side) comparison to Roe v. Wade to argue that Olson et al are “pushing” full equality on 45 states. Olson rebuts with the point that these are fundamental rights that are in the Constitution, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for FOX News to have to wait to get freedom of the press in 45 states, one by one.

All in all, a great case for our side.

UPDATE (8:06 PST): In a piece that is sure to send your blood pressure through the roof, I see that hogan at RedState, a conservative blog, blew a gasket this morning over Olson’s appearance. He essentially argues that the federal judiciary serves no legitimate oversight purpose other than to validate the decisions of majorities of people and their elected representatives, lest they become “holier-than-thous”, which is apparently what they were in Brown, Loving, Roe, and who knows how many other cases. The best hyperbole, though:

Gay “marriage” is not the preferred policy choice of most Americans – and, even, a majority of Californians. Yet Olson wants some judges to use the Constitution to mandate a false notion of equality that will amount to the biggest breach of societal stability in the history of mankind.

Chaos, chaos in the streets!

Entry filed under: Videos.

More from #NOMturnoutFAIL in Atlanta Meet the NOM Tour Trackers, Part 4: Phyllis Lozano

124 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 9, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Let’s dismantle them, shall we?!

    • 2. Ann S.  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:35 am

      Good morning, everyone, and happy Monday. It’s a brave new week, and I’m subscribing (of course).

    • 3. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:11 am

      And me.

      • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:12 am

        subscribing 2

    • 5. Joe  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:01 am

      That’s so ridiculous. Supporting same sex marriage does NOT mean you’re against opposite sex marriage. People don’t suddenly not get married because two guys down the street get married. They don’t go to a same sex wedding and suddenly stop going to opposite sex weddings.

      Proposition 8 did not suddenly restore heterosexual’s ability to marry. It just eliminated the rights of gay people to marry. It did not reaffirm heterosexual marriage. It just made it an exclusive club.

      And if this is the undoing of society, same sex marriage has been legal for years in Canada and several American states, and is legal in numerous countries throughout the world. And yet the evidence of “societal undoing” is nowhere to be found. Nothing in this trial presented any evidence of it. When asked what it would cause, their answer was simply “I don’t know” or “We don’t need evidence.” It’s akin to saying, “You’re honor, my client is innocent.” When asked for evidence, the lawyer merely says “Because I say so!”

      No wonder they lost.

      • 6. Beth  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:08 am

        No, it’s true. I’m getting married next month and I’ve already decided that, even though I love my fiance dearly and can’t wait to start our life together, the fact that same-sex partners can now marry each other means that I’m gonna have to get divorced lest people think I support that homosecksual nonsense. How can I POSSIBLY live my own life and think about my own family when other people are out their living their lives and I can’t tell them not to???!!!

      • 7. Beth  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:08 am

        Oh God, in my upsettedness I said “out their” when I should have said “out there.” YOU SEE WHAT THE GAYS MADE ME DO.

  • 8. Bryan  |  August 9, 2010 at 7:58 am

    LOVE him. What a great (straight conservative!) ally.

  • 9. William  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:01 am

    I loved how Chris Wallace basically had to admit he’d been beaten by Olson on all points at the end of the interview. I really do think the terms of the debate have changed across the US after this ruling.

    • 10. MJFargo  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:11 am

      Yes, and we this legal team–and those responsible for putting it together–to thank. I keep trying to imagine what other judges, looking at this case and how it was presented, would determine: I don’t see that Judge Walker had any other conclusion to make than the one he wrote.

    • 11. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

      It’s also gratifying that both Olson and Boies are such authorities that the interviewers will defer and let them speak their minds if they insist. Usually, the interviewer bounces back and forth while the sides are so opposed that it sounds like they aren’t even talking about the same thing. There’s not necessarily an opportunity to challenge or respond to the opposition’s position, unless the interviewer invites it.

      • 12. Breaking the Silence  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:50 am

        “Did I interrupt you?” Love it.

    • 13. Joe  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:03 am

      I have one straight coworker, a rabid Republican and conservative and card-carrying libertarian, who’s mind was changed by this. He read the decision and completely agreed.

      A true conservative would believe that government has no right to regulate people’s personal relationships!

      • 14. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:08 am

        That’s really encouraging news, Joe. I hope we can get more people to read the decision. It’s what Boies and Olson keep stressing. Have people read the decision and then discuss which of the facts they don’t think are true and which of the conclusions of law do they think are not supported by the facts.

      • 15. Ann S.  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:38 am

        Joe, I agree (once again!) with Kathleen, that is very heartening, indeed.

        It always mystifies me why people who claim government is “too big” want it to go poking into people’s bedrooms and personal lives, and interfering with women seeking medical procedures from their doctors.

      • 16. Anonygrl  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        That is the kind of news that makes all the rest of the nonsense worthwhile. Thanks for the good news, Joe!

  • 17. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Between this and the Boise Smack Down of Tony Perkins it was a beautiful weekend!

    • 18. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:20 am

      oops! Boies! sorry.

      • 19. Dave in ME  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

        Ha! I was wondering what those Idahoans had done this time!

        Dave in Maine

  • 20. Dave in ME  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:13 am

    This is fantastic!

    Dave in Maine

  • 21. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:13 am

    just wondering where the DI’s legal team is now. If Walker blew the ruling – as NOM et. al. claim – why aren’t their lawyers on the tubes talking about that (or have I missed it)?

    • 22. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:20 am

      oops! Boies! sorry.

      • 23. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:21 am

        dammit! :) Slow down, buddy.

    • 24. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:51 am

      Yeah good point bJason! Where ARE the lawers from the other side? They know they dont’ have a leg to stand on so they are making the wise decision to say nothing. You don’t see them on Meet the Press.

      • 25. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm

        “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” ~Abraham Lincoln

        A little too late for the Prop 8 side…

      • 26. RebeccaRGB  |  August 10, 2010 at 7:29 am

        @Chris in Lanthrop – Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said that, not Lincoln?

      • 27. JC  |  August 10, 2010 at 11:47 am

        Once an editor, always an editor… A quick check corroborates that it was Mr. Lincoln who said these wise words. He was full of wise and witty sayings. And I’m not just saying that because I was born and raised in the Land o’ Lincoln ;-)

  • 28. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Good morning everyone!

    • 29. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:18 am

      Hi, Alan.

      Was video or audio of the Commerce Club (?) event ever posted/linked? I’d love to check that out. So jealous of your being there!

      • 30. adambink  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:23 am

        Video of the Commonwealth Club is here:

      • 31. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:30 am

        I’m the first person to stand up at the very end. You can see mine and Dpeck’s heads at the very beginning, too (from right it goes shiny bald head, mine, then Dpeck’s).

      • 32. bJason  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:21 am

        Thanks, Adam! For this and everything else :)

      • 33. Bolt  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:30 am

        Thanks, Abink, and Alan, that was helpful to hear, and sobering. The question and answer about the stay, at the 1:01:30 mark are nerve-racking. If Walker denies a stay, and that decision is appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS, and they uphold a stay, that could indicate how they’re leaning right now.

  • 34. JAB  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Is there video of the Boies/Perkins exchange? Would love to see it.

    • 35. Evan  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:34 am

      I’m not sure how to send you the direct link, but the video is embedded in this posting in a blog that we have here in DC:


    • 36. AndrewPDX  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:40 am

      It was on Face the Nation on Sunday (ysterday morning)… Sorry, I can’t find the link at the moment, but it was good. Boies’ quote about “the witness stand is a lonely place to lie” (or something like that) was awesome, about how trials need something called evidence.

      Perkins is an idiot. he says that there are no studies comparing same-sex parents to opposite-sex parents… Such studies were presented as evidence in the trial, so it is obvious he didn’t read the transcripts nor the findings of FACT in Walker’s ruling.


      • 37. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:54 am

        Hearing Perkins refer to “history” and “TRADITIONAL marriage” to no end suddenly conjured for me David Sedaris’ Christmas elf story of being asked for a more “traditional” Santa Claus when presented with a black one. I seriously think that if the conservative movement wants to continue to fake its civil rights chops, it oughta lose that word.

        Olson and Boies are unflappable, but I only wish they’d refer viewers directly to these actual existing studies; regardless of whether anyone would go and find them, it’d be great for the sake of argument when it becomes clear that tools like Perkins have nowhere to point to.

  • 38. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Oh wow. Anyone who seriously thinks that majority opinion = judge ruling is deluded and needs to look at history in the Supreme Court. Arisha has shown us that about 73% of the population was against interracial marriages in 1967. It wasn’t until the 90’s that favor became the majority. The court looks at matters of law. I’m sure the ruling for corporations being able to donate unlimited amounts of money is not supported by popular opinion, too. Sure they may take into some account the opinion of the citizens, but law has a heavier weight.

  • 39. eDee  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Phenomenal interview!!

  • 40. Hanou  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Hogan’s rantings and ravings against Olson are hilarious. He ignores every aspect of the case “surely we must have a rational basis, because I don’t want gays to marry!”
    From his rant: “Olson claims that California “has no rational basis for continuing this discrimination.” Really? No rational basis? Who made you King, Mr. Olson?”
    Only kings are now allowed to point out flaws in rationality by the populace. The only one allowed to point out that the Emperor has no clothes is himself!

  • 41. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:37 am

    When I see an article decrying the catastrophic over-reach of Judge Walker’s decision, I play a game. I count how many paragraphs it takes to say something that is plainly anti-gay, not just anti-same sex marriage. Haven’t kept records, unfortunately, but I find it soothing that they can’t police their message to disguise what’s really bothering them for more than three or four or five paragraphs.

    • 42. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

      Drat. hogan doesn’t play my game. The closest he comes is a refenence to “faith and morality” in para 8.

  • 43. Tracy  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:41 am

    hogan at Red State says “Mr. Olson hides behind – as any good activist does – the issue of race to use the Constitution for a larger social purpose and to achieve own policy objective. ”

    What, pray tell, in Ted Olson’s lengthy, successful and generally conservative career makes him think that Mr. Olson would be an “activist”, particularly on this issue, with his “own policy objective”?

    • 44. Tracy  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

      The truth is, the only “evidence” to that fact is THIS trial, THIS decision, proving Mr. Olson’s point precisely.

  • 45. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Check out this writeup about the protest against AFTAH’s (AmericansFor Truth About Homosexuality) “school” session. Fantastic read with lots of great pictures

    • 46. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:44 am

      There are to be follow-on posts on what actually went on at the Truth Academy sessions from stealth attendees. If anyone sees these, please post.

      Well worth reading.

      • 47. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        Hemant Mehta, the owner of the blog I just posted, made sure that he could find the sources to get at least one person in. It looks like there may be more than 1 in there. If you get a chance, send a thanks to Hemant on his blog. He is a fantastic ally!

  • 48. Evan  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:53 am

    My favorite part of Hogan’s rant is this

    “There is absolutely zero evidence that the people who drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution intended to prohibit the people of the United States from being able to recognize though the democratic process what marriage is…”

    1) It’s amazing how so many conservatives are strict constructionists when it comes to decisions they don’t like.

    2) No, they probably didn’t directly address marriage equality when the approved those amendments… HOWEVER, I’m pretty sure that they all agreed on the principle that our laws should apply equally to ALL of us, and certain people shouldn’t be selected out for special treatment denied to others. It’s the fundamental American ideal of fairness and equality for all. This fairness also includes marriage. Why is that such a hard concept for some people??


    • 49. Hanou  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

      How unfortunate for him that there IS evidence that the Supreme Court has found that there is evidence that those Amendments DO prohibit the people of the US from being able to define through the democratic process what marriage is. I also like how referring to Loving is “playing the race card” instead of pointing out precedent. It’s not our fault that our opponents are playing the part of racists!

    • 50. Steve  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

      There is one good comment in there about DC’s gun control law. They restricted gun ownership based on a popular vote. In that case, the 2nd Amendment would probably be far more important to them than the “will of the people”.

      And he probably didn’t read the ruling. He goes on a lot about rational basis. But Prop8 also failed strict scrutiny. Not that he’d agree with that either.

  • 51. HunterR.  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Morning all,
    Using my favorite word, from Hillary Clinton, both Mr. Boies and Olson have the GRAVITAS to stop and listen. And I hope the Nation is listening. This trial is allowing for a public forum in the harm we have suffered for so long in the name of religious bigotry.

  • 52. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Sadly becasue I am connecting from France I am not able to see the CBS video of Boies & perkins. That is okay I have read enough comments to knwo it was great. It is jsut one of the trade offs I ahve to make for living in paradise.

    There was a link above somewhere I am not sure where to the video of Boies and Petrkins and on the website they said a very prophetic thing, they said “Junk Science” I think we all need to pick up on that and start using that term here and in our communications. It is Junk Science that children raised in SS homes do not do as well as children raised in OS homes. It is a great term, “Junk Science.” we should pick up and use that term.

    • 53. draNgNon  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm

      I agree! JUNK SCIENCE…

  • 54. Bolt  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Awesome post. The legal arguments are where the power is.

    According to Olson’s legal argument regarding lifting Walker’s stay, the defendants don’t have the legal standing to appeal prop 8 to the ninth circuit, and he’s denied Imperial county’s request to intervene.

    Who will appeal this decision, and how long do they have?

    • 55. New  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:55 am

      I was curious about his comment on that. If the 9th Circuit Court denied the Prop 8 folks from appealing, since they don’t have the legal standing to do the appeal, then what happens??

      I hope some legal minds here could help address this. Will the legal process stop there…and then Judge Walker’s ruling is enacted? Would it hurt our side if it is denied by the 9th CC to be heard (due to the legal standing issue)?

      • 56. Ann S.  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:05 am

        @New — if the 9th Circuit denies the Prop 8 proponents’ right to appeal, I imagine they will try to appeal that decision to the SCOTUS (I say “try” because the SCOTUS doesn’t have to take the case).

        If neither appeal succeeds, then Judge Walker’s ruling stands, and Prop 8 is permanently enjoined from being enforced (that is, it’s still on the law books, but means nothing). That would be a WIN.

      • 57. New  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm

        @ Ann S. If things turn out the way you just described, that would be great for California. Just curious, wouldn’t it be better for us in the LGBT community if the case went all the way to the SCOTUS in terms of marriage equality throughout the country? I’m worried that if things get stopped in the 9th CC due to the legal standing issue…I’m afraid our rights in other states won’t be directly affected. Any thoughts?

      • 58. Ann S.  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        @New, you’re right that if there is no appeal then this case has no direct effect on rights in other states. On the other hand, it will be permanently in the record books as a final win. There are arguments on both sides as to which is better for rights throughout the US.

        Ultimately, the SCOTUS will have to address this issue. It may actually be better if this is NOT the case that goes to SCOTUS since, unlike in any other state, Californians had marriage equality and it was taken away — therefore, SCOTUS might issue a decision that affects only CA.

        On the other hand, this one is well poised — a solid win, a great opinion, a great legal team on our side.

        Here’s the thing — the stated goal of this legal team in THIS case is to win marriage equality in California for their clients. If this ruling stands, their clients can get married sooner rather than later. That is what is driving them right now, I believe.

      • 59. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:04 pm

        One of the things that this case has done is to establish a powerful evidentiary record. I remember Olson saying early on in the trial that even if they lost, the factual record alone would be valuable in going forward with other cases. One of the greatest gifts Walker gave us was insisting on a trial.

      • 60. New  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm

        Those are all wonderful things. I’m so glad that things have turned out the way they have, thus far. I know that Boise recently said that he thought that the case may make it’s way to the SCOTUS sometime in 2011. Just curious, I know that there’s the DOMA case from Mass. that is said to be “in the pipeline” and should make it’s way to the SCOTUS before this particular case. What affects might that case have on our equality, in addition to what affects you think it would have on this case if it gets there in 2011? (oh…and btw…you guys have been awesome providing very informative information….thank you, thank you, thank!) :)

      • 61. Ann S.  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm

        @New, it’s anyone’s guess whether this case or the Mass. cases might get to the SCOTUS first.

  • 62. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Topical article in Time about videotaping police officers.

    Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime?,8599,2008566,00.html?xid=newsletter-weekly

  • 63. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:05 am

    I think a good rally slogan is, “Discrimination based on Orientation” Let’s just call it what Judge Walker called it. Instead of all the time saying “Equality,” which sounds so nice and non threatning, let’s start saying, “You believe in Discrimination based on Orientation” Let’s start using more pointed langauge. Let’s start using the word Discrimination more. It even kind of rhymes.

    • 64. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

      While I was filling 10 cases of olive oil for an order I thought about this and decided that we can shortne even more, lets jsut call it

      “Orientation Discrimination”

      Sexual is implied and we don’t even need to state it. Let’s start to be more pointed in our conversations and also point out what Judge Walker did, he used the word discrimination multiple times.

  • 65. Christian  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Found a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun refuting the Judge Walker is bias arguments. It also as a poll asking people’s opinions of the ruling, so far overwhelmingly in favor of the ruling:,0,6295840.story

  • 66. Mackenzie  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:24 am

    LOVES IT !

  • 67. atty79  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:27 am

    For this Hogan fellow and his ilk: It sickens me how uneducated American citizens are about our system of government.

    We are a constitutional democracy/republic. That means we believe in a constitution to balance powers of those who govern us. Compare, for instance, in a parliamentary system, where the legislature reigns supreme.

    When people claim that judges are elites who judge on high, they fail to respect the very institution our forebears wanted for us. When people claim that the vote of the people reign supreme, they fail to understand that when citizens of a state vote, they vote as LEGISLATORS.

    Just as congress can’t decide to revive slavery, so too can’t the people vote to do so. Why? Because our constitution says so.

    Judges are there to thoughtfully tell us, or our representatives, when we’ve gone out of bounds. When you call a judge an activist, what you’re really saying is that you hate the constitution. If you don’t like it, change it. And don’t forget, judges just don’t appoint themselves. They are appointed by a democratic process.

    Study civics, actually read the opinions, and you might realize that the constitution is a wonderful document as it is, not as you think it should be.

    By the way, was it activism when the supreme court recently used the 14th amendment to apply gun rights to the states? I bet you didn’t think so, but no where in the constitution does it say that the states are beholden to the 2nd amendment. It takes reading and understanding the purpose of the constitution to realize that the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment applicable to the states. Just like it takes reading and understanding the due process clause and the 14th amendment equal protection clause to realize that marriage is a fundamental human right that cannot be denied.

    • 68. Breaking the Silence  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:34 am

      Atty79, BRAVO! A basic lesson that should be repeated and displayed ad nauseum!

  • 69. Ronnie  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:32 am

    “Most people use the term “judicial activism” to explain decisions they don’t like.” ~ Ted Olsen

    That was perfect….<3…Ronnie

  • 70. Mike M  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:44 am

    My only question in this whole debate has always been; Are there that many straight people who live in fear their spouses will run off to marry a same sex partner. Because if there are, then we have been seriously underestimating our percentage in the population as a whole.

    • 71. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:17 am


  • 73. cole  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:47 am

    re: the term judicial activism. after olson says “Most people use the term “judicial activism” to explain decisions they don’t like.” chris wallace agrees!

  • 74. Ginger  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Did anybody else notice that Hogan actually advocated for sodomy laws in the middle of the blog post?

    “Justice Antonin Scalia aptly ridiculed Kennedy when he described Kennedy’s “sweet-mysteries-of-life-passage” when it was seemingly invoked by the Court to tell Texas that sodomy also is a protected right.”

    This is not somebody that the 1man1woman group wants on their side because he’s actually making their argument harder to win.

  • 75. Ronnie  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Hey guys/gals…here is a Facebook event page for the D.C. rally to counter NOM….<3…Ronnie:

    The Big Commit {A NOM Counter-Protest and Rally}


    To the Big Commit, August 15, 2010, in Washington, DC, location TBA

    Join forces with Equality Across America, Full Equality Now! DC, and Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Activists and Allies in a collaborative effort to send a message of inclusion, tolerance, and community support.

  • 76. SpectralMudcrab  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:08 am

    That blogger is right, it is the biggest threat to societal stability in the history of mankind. I live in Canada where SSM is legal. It’s a horrible existence. Buildings are crumbling, the sky is a permanent blood-red, people are rioting and looting and killing! Every day we have to live with the fact that homos can marry! It’s the gay apocalypse!!!

  • 77. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:17 am

    [Hulk] hogan: “…the biggest breach of societal stability in the history of mankind.”


    In a world… where people who are totes gay get to marry who they like…

    (earthquake noises, all the animals look up and begin to scurry away)

    Something that was supposed to remain buried… awakens once more!

    (a beautiful outdoor gay wedding)

    “I now pronounce you man and MAN OH MAN WHAT IS THAT?!!”

    “It’s an army of zombie Confederate Viet Cong Nazi Bolshevik activist judges!!!”

    “Run for your lives! They’re eating brains and changing public policy!!”

    Coming this his fall to theaters across California… Roland Emmerich’s FABULOUS!

    This time… it’s for realsies.

  • 78. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:19 am

    And the Toronto Pride Week draws 1 million people from all over North America :). To watch the destruction of civilization and otherwise have fun.

    • 79. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:10 am

      Personally, I am sick and tired of these fundamentalists trampling all over my constitutional right to a gay apocalypse. Who are these Bible-thumpers to come along and tell me when I can and can’t witness the destruction of civilization in a blaze of tastefully arranged lightning and hellfire? Politicians like to pretend that ‘gay doomsday’ comes with all the same rights and blood-curdling screams of “oh, the humanity,” but it’s just not true! And even if it was, homosexuals should have the same rights and opportunities to annihilate us all that straight people have had all throughout history, without having to call it something different!

      • 80. AndrewPDX  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:34 am

        tastefully arrainged lightning and hellfire… Now there’s an image!


  • 81. Felyx  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:54 am

    NOM is in Raleigh tomorrow…

    We have a permit to be present (no cop bouncers!)…

    And they are not hiding in a church!

    Raleigh / Durham / Chapel-Hill is the politically gay friendliest spot in the entire State! (Props to Asheville though.)



    (In NC we don’t take kaindly to Ferners what comes in ta trample on our raights!)

    • 82. Anonygrl  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:05 am

      All I gots ta say ta you all is WOOT!

      Go git em!


    • 83. Ronnie  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:26 am

      Here is a good article on what counter NOM protests & happenings will be going on in Raleigh 2morro…..there’s links to Facebook groups for the
      Justice League – Activate!, our very own Richard Walter, & 2 more as well…..<3…Ronnie:

      “We’ve seen pretty unsurprisingly small numbers at their events across the country so far,” he said. “I don’t think the Prop 8 decision is going to dramatically inflate their numbers. We’ll find out, of course. I think their empty message of discrimination is losing traction and more and more people are realizing there is no good reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. That trend is only going to continue.”~ Sean Eldridge, Freedom to Marry communications director

      • 84. Anna Bryan  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:02 pm

        Downtown Raleigh is within a 20 minute walk of NC State University (student pop 28,000), a 15 minute drive of UNC-Chapel Hill, and a 20 minute drive of Duke University. I hope the counter protesters have tried to tap into these student groups (fortunately, summer courses are fairly well attended at these universities).

      • 85. Chrys  |  August 9, 2010 at 6:22 pm

        The Justice League – Activate group is Harrisburg, PA, not Raleigh.

    • 86. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:27 am


      “Never get off the bus.”

    • 87. New  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:33 am

      If my partner and I wanted to attend with you there, do we need to be on a guest list or anything? Do we just show up? Where would we meet? We’d like to be a part of celebrating equality! Thanks! :)

      • 88. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        I’m sure you don’t need to be on a guest list to join other supporters of marriage equality. As to where to meet, hopefully someone involved will answer that.

      • 89. Felyx  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        For those wanting to join you can look here. This is one site of many.

        I desperately hope Someone shows up for NOM… this is looking like a huge event for us!!!

  • 90. Anonygrl  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:03 am

    From Brian’s latest “we need your money” letter on the NOM Blog… and my response.

    “The heart of bigotry is a close-mindedness that breeds first incomprehension and then hatred.”

    I would add that this is plainly evident when people decide the definition of marriage ONLY pertains to one man and one woman, discriminating against same sex couples who wish to marry. This behavior is often followed closely by quoting of statistics that have been found to be false, such as “children do better in a household with a mother and a father than in one with two same sex parents” when 20 plus years of studies have shown otherwise. When that fails to convince, the next step seems to be decrying court cases that go against them as being presided over by “gay activist judges” (IS he gay? Has he ever said so? No. So that is hearsay. Is he an activist? No, in fact he is often remarked upon as being a conservative, too conservative for Ronald Regan to get approved,in fact. So that is a flat out lie. Is he a judge? Most certainly, and a very good one who is thorough and detailed in his rulings. I guess one out of three is not bad.)

    All of this is accompanied by many claims of “loving”, which are not born out by the choice of speakers at their rallies (preachers who claim homosexuality is evil, abusive, equatable to pedophilia, incest and beastiality), nor by their words (“we support gay rights! Just not the right to marry even though supported by law in some states, nor do we think they should adopt…and we must make sure that CHILDREN don’t think that they are equal, heaven forbid a child should hear about the existence of same sex couples in schools…”) nor by their deeds (for example: excluding people from their rallies simply because they are two men holding hands).

    Let’s change all that. You get out of he “same sex marriage is evil” business, and instead go to “let’s find ways of helping married folks who are having difficulties by finding ways to get them counselling, assistance with tax info, access to better child care…” and WE will start HELPING YOU WITH YOUR FUNDING.

    What do you say?

    • 91. New  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      That’s amazing! I’d sign up for that one!

  • 92. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Great article:

    I like the reference to how it’s always one man, one woman, never one woman, one man…lol

    Talking Prop. 8: Of Rites and Rights
    Judge Walker’s take on the man-woman thing, Constitutional government as self-correcting, and a president who wants to be “Mr. Respectability-in-Chief”

    • 93. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm

      I found Randy Thomasson’s use of the phrase “opponents of man-woman marriage” hilarious. Now we don’t simply want equal access to state recognized marriage, we’re opposed to any marriage which involves a man and a woman. Hmmm….. after thinking about it, it does appear that many os couples can’t form lasting relationships, so maybe that should be our next cause. :)

    • 94. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:29 pm

      Fantastic article. If I read it again five or six times I will have mastered the push back against the traditional marriage fanatics.

  • 95. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:25 am

    As I’ve often said of my friend in the Armed Services, I’m glad they’re on our side!

    Strip away the opposition’s arguments to their very core, and you get:

    1) Bible (at at the leadership level in particular, this really means “power”)
    2) Ick

    Am I right? I think those are the elemental particles of Prop8ium.

    • 96. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:26 am

      (*friends, rather – lots of active duty and veterans)

    • 97. Anonygrl  |  August 9, 2010 at 11:43 am

      Yes, SA, I believe you are thinking of Prop8ium-Discriminotide, the chemical formula for which IS, in fact, B2I3. It is sadly impervious to Resonium, and strangely resistant to Lawonide. It CAN be defeated by a combination of You Are No Longer Funded mixed with equal parts of Time Has Passed and No One Cares About Your Bigotted Position Anymore.

      • 98. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:13 pm

        *standing ovation*

      • 99. AndrewPDX  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:37 pm


        Have you guys seen The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense?

        I’m sure Prop8ium is on there somewhere, maybe as an unstable isotope of NOMicite.


      • 100. Ronnie  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:46 pm

        LOL, Andrew….I see one under credulous -block….”Bs-27=Bible Code……I love it…<3..Ronnie

      • 101. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm

        I had never seen that, Andrew. Thanks!

  • 102. rf  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Signorile just played parts of Arisha’s interview with that king lady. He’s shocked– SHOCKED– that NOM only got 14 (his number) people to show up after the prop 8 verdict came out, in one of the biggest cities in the south, with a famous (or at least well known with a famous name) “civil wrongs” figure.

  • 103. Christopher in San Francisco  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    I’ve been thinking….what will happen to the Brian/Maggie/NOM monster when marriage equality prevails? I mean who will they go after next? Who will they hate (besides us of course)?

    It is so obvious to me…in addition to their bigotry, hatred and lies…they need to keep marriage equality from happening so they can continue to raise money, ergo they and their hate groups (NOM, FRC, etc.) and their employees still have jobs. So basically it’s all about the dollar. I’m sure I’m over simplifying this and it shocks me that it took until now for me to come to this conclusion…I’m just glad I finally did!

    Love as always,

    Christopher in San Francisco

    • 104. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:24 pm


      I believe that the Religious Right will redouble their efforts against science and history, mainly through promotion of creationism and the “Christian Nation” myth. There would already be cracks in the coalition at this point – the marriage equality issue is, I think, the only thing that aligns the most reactionary elements of the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, and evangelicals, and the points above are mostly characteristic of the evangelicals. Look at any creationist or Christian Nation organization’s web site, and somewhere they’re railing against same-sex marriage as the road to Perdition. When equality prevails, they can target sound science and history scholarship with very little change in the wording of their arguments – you’ll see persecution, will of the people, and comparisons to Nazis coming up all over against. If I were more optimistic, I’d say that having their nose bloodied in one fight would make them retreat, but I can’t help but predict the exact opposite.

    • 105. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      And of course, there’s always abortion. Were also starting to see a lot of organized opposition to the Muslim faith among the more right wing “Christians.”

  • 106. fiona64  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Louis (Hi, Louis!) is trying to pretend in his blog that the reason the fear-mongering rally was inside the church was because of inclement weather.

    Okay …


    • 107. Anonygrl  |  August 9, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      LOL. If the weather were that bad, wouldn’t the Christian thing to do have been inviting the protesters in for protection from it?

    • 108. Ronnie  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      & by “inclement weather” he means a larger group of Equality supporters showing up to rain on their(NOM’s) hate parade….bwaaaaa…hahaha…I spin doctored Louis….HI LOUIS!!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie:

      "It's just one more day. No one said. There would be rain again. Won't blame it on myself. Yeah! I'll blame it on the weatherman.

    • 109. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm

      And we all know how hard it is to get a civil rights movement going in the south unless you have air conditioning.

    • 110. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 2:28 pm

      I heard there was a gathering storm outside the walls, and they were afraid.

  • 111. Brittney  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    This man is absolutely intelligent!
    It was so refreshing to hear him speak.

    They are losing, and deep inside, they know it..

  • 112. Trish  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    I just finished watching the Commonwealth Club speech. I am deeply moved.

    As much as I hate becoming an issue to be debated theoretically, I do appreciate all of the straight allies out there who continue to stand up for equality.

    • 113. Alan E.  |  August 9, 2010 at 2:34 pm

      One major thing I noticed at the Commonwealth Club was the average age was at least 50 in the room. Commonwealth Club’s demographics lean towards the older generation, but many of those people appeared to be straight (at least not many were pinging my gaydar [dpeck to my left and Steve to my right could have been throwing that off though lol]). It actually felt really good to not see as many younger people because it shows how much this means to all generations.

      (My apologies if you took offense and were in attendance, but this is only from my observations.)


      PS yes that is a dog bark you hear in there a couple times. I have no idea why anyone brought a dog there.

  • 114. Cat  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I am so in awe of Ted Olson’s fatherly demeanor and friendly tone. One by one he dispels the bad dreams of the frightened people. Of course the hardliners and those who earn their money (and/or boost their ego) raising controversy won’t change their behavior because of this, but many fair minded people that are simply ill- or misinformed will not only listen to but also truly hear what Ted Olson says.

  • 115. Matt  |  August 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Great, great stuff from Olsen.

    His counterpart has an equally good video on CBS:

  • 116. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 9, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Yes, Olson and Boies both gave kick-ass interviews yesterday. Olson on FNS, Boies on face the Nation, even causing Tony Perkins to start sputtering.

  • 117. chris  |  August 9, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    In the Wallace interview, Olson talked about 14 different times the SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right. Does anyone know which cases he’s talking about? Or is there a reference that gives that detail somewhere thatI haven’t found yet? Loving I assume is one, but I’m curious about the others.

  • 119. shellybee  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Just this July my husband and I chose to be married in San Francisco and as we were out at the Golden Gate Park taking pictures two individuals came up onto the side walk to where we were taking pictures and started to protest for same sex marriage.. We were minding our business exercising our right to marry as man and woman and were not able to do that in peace. I ask my self, they want equal rights? I believe that its not like my self who defend prop 8 who are not wanting to give them equal rights its them who are shoving there life style down our throats and forcing us to accept there life style.

    • 120. Ronnie  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:36 am

      Excuse me?….NO!…not really…..get over yourself… selfish, spoiled, brat…..<3…Ronnie

    • 121. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:00 am

      Shellybee, I’m sorry if you feel that someone was rude to you, but you were in a public park, sometimes things will happen.

      Why do you think it’s OK for you to vote on whether other people get to marry? Did anyone vote on whether you could get married?

  • […] Read a history book, people. Or Brian Devine’s post on the history of judicial review. Or watch fellow conservative Ted Olson. […]

  • […] prevents civil rights from being put to a popular vote in the District of Columbia. Ted Olson memorably told Chris Wallace on FOX News “Would you like FOX’s right to free press put up to a […]

  • […] which I respond with the quote of the year in my book: “Most people use the term “judicial activism” to explain decisions they […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...