WATCH: Olson on FOX: "How Would You Like Your Rights Put to a Vote?"

The lead attorney in the successful federal challenge to California's Proposition 8 appeared on Fox News Sunday and eviscerated the conservative talking points against marriage equality made by host Chris Wallace. "Where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?" asked Wallace. "Where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution, Chris?" replied former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson.

Rough transcript of one of the key passages:

OLSON: The Supreme Court has looked at marriage and has said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. So you call it interracial marriage and then you could prohibit it, no? The Supreme Court said no. The same thing here. ...

WALLACE: Seven million people in California don't get to say marriage is between a man and a woman? Seven million Californians voted to say that in November 2008.

OLSON: In the 1960s, an equivalent number of Californians voted to change their constitution to say you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home. The United States Supreme Court struck that down. If 7 million Californians decided that we should have separate but equal schools—or send some of citizens to separate drinking fountains or to the back of the bus—that would be unconstitutional. ... That's why we have a Bill of Rights.

Later, when Wallace said that same-sex marriage should be decided on a "state-by-state basis", Olson replied for the win: "Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?"

Ouch.

Olson adds that he's confident Perry v Schwarzenegger will reach the Supreme Court and win. As I've said before, I believe him. Via Think Progress, watch Olson school Wallace AFTER THE JUMP ...

Comments

[Automatic Prince]

Best interview about the whole thing so far. Brilliantly clear and articulate.
Does it really mean that if this makes it to the Supreme Court and we win, all 50 states will have to accept gay marriage?
It sounds too good to be true... lol

[Faison]

Bitchslap to that idiot Wallace. Nice job, Ted.

[Tim Lee]

Major love for this guy. Is there anything better than having someone who not only knows the truth but can articulate it so well and in real time. You know that the goons at Faux News want to push their narrative. He went into the lions den and killed the lion.

[Talarico]

@ Automatic Prince:

It seems a virtual certainty that SCOTUS will eventually get this case. But first it must go to the 9th Circuit of Appeals, which is probably the most liberal circuit. The 9th is very unlikely to overturn Walker's decision. But if it does overturn his decision, then it's doubtful the case will go to SCOTUS.

Assuming that the 9th does uphold the case and SCOTUS takes the appeal, there are several possibilities IF we win. It could be a very narrow ruling or a broader ruling covering the country that invalidates all constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Or even something broader, prohibiting laws against same sex marriage, whether approved by the voters or not.

The court could rule Prop 8 was indeed unconstitutional, and leave the door open for people in other states to challenge their marriage bans. Or say, 'You cant ban gay marriage" but not force states to offer it, which seems likely, too.

Keep in mind that there are several other DOMA-related cases working their way through the federal system, most notably the two cases in Massachusetts (Gill v OPM and Massachusetts vs HHS) that a federal judge ruled in favor last month. So there are several different avenues here, to 1-2-3 punch the marriage amendments and the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Cleon]

I can see why he was his Supreme Court case of bush vs. Gore. I saw the interview this morning and was very impress Chris couldn't stomp him with any of his far right-wing questions! He was very impressive. I wish he was Gore's attorney, Gore would possibly president!

[Ty]

Bravo Ted Olson!
Who would've thought a Bush Republican would be the hero of the gay rights movement?

It's very easy to see why he won that case for Bush. I didn't like Olson then but do now. You go Ted!

[Automatic Prince]

@ Talarico

Thanks a lot for the explanation :-)

[Isis]

OWNED!!!! Get em Ted!

[Tony]

You gotta love Ted Olson. It's quite apparent that he believes in simple, rational arguments. Liberals hated when Gore didn't emerge with the presidency in 2000, but you know what? Olson was arguing the more rational case when he represented Bush in 2000. More people actually had ballots voting for George Bush than they did for Al Gore in Florida--correct ballots, that is. If more voters meant to vote for Gore but messed up their ballots, well, that calls for speculation, and Bush actually had more ballots, so that was a better legal argument.

And this is a simple, rational argument now that Olson's arguing. There's basically no rational basis to not allow gays and lesbians to get married, and that is at the heart of what Olson and David Boies are saying. Almost all people that are against gay marriage have religious reasons for doing so. Well, as long as the state of California allows people to get married in non-religious settings--think Justice of the Peace offices in courthouses--how is it possibly rational to not allow gays to marry in that fashion? Nobody's going to force a church that's against gay marriage to marry gay people. But they sure as hell don't have the right to tell the state what to do! It's really a simple, logical argument we have, and we have the law on our side in this matter. I truly believe that.

[Chaz]

Ted and David you guys are great...