« CA Supreme Carlos Moreno Casts Single Vote Against Prop 8 | Main | White House Has No Comment on Prop 8 and Ends Press Briefing »

27 May 2009


Mark Andrew

Why would the Establishment want a demographic group that has plenty of wealth, is sexually liberated, with no children to raise, with an outsider status, with strong community spirit, with a very personal relationship to the Creator (who "made" them "that way"), and strident voices calling for justice and beauty, and who "come from every tribe and language and people and nation" -- why would the establishment want them to settle down and raise kids with a house and a mortgage and a picket fence and a yard and a dog and a car?


is this the same ted olson that represented the bush administration before the supreme court? i'm very suspicious. hopeful but suspicious all the same.

Danny Rivera

Blech. Ted Olson is a right wing hack. I wouldn't be surprised if the conservatives want this case to go quickly to the Supremes because they know the federal courts are still mostly Bush appointments.

Dark Sun

Alright....you get another chance to fight like hell!!! START NOW!!!!!


Danny, you speak the truth, its just another right wing ploy.


I will reserve judgment until I see what happens with this. It is very suspicious though.


To all of you skeptics: Mr. Olson is a good Christian man (aka Republican). There is no way a follower of Jesus would deliberately misrepresent himself and engage in a dishonest effort to damage our lives.

There is no way a follower of Jesus would deliberately misrepresent himself and engage in a dishonest effort to damage our lives.

Oh, of course not, LMAO. Being a follower of Jesus, Bush didn't misrepresent himself or engage in a dishonest effort to start a war in the middle east either.

On the other hand, "damage" depends on your definition. What some term "saving from eternal damnation" might be termed "psychological damage" to others. What some would call "corrective therapy" might be called "mental and physical torture" by others.


I say go for it.

Will the court rule against us? Yeah, probably. Will they be right? No. Loving makes it clear that marriage is a fundamental right, and Lawrence points out that our relationships are our business, not the governments. The 14th amendment clearly says we get the same treatment under the law. These guys are right, and even if they lose, they should go forward with it. We'll get our rights however we have to, but this is a righteous attempt to make the highest authorities on the law in the land to uphold the law, instead of playing politics.

Of course, the phrase "lawyers who argued Bush v. Gore" doesn't exactly elicit confidence in the Supreme Court.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad