Why Ted Olson is wrong

Kevin McCullough
|
Posted: Jan 17, 2010 12:00 AM

In a simple display of misguidedness Ted Olson, fellow Fox News Contributor Margaret Hoover, and the "American Foundation for 'Equal' Rights'" are wrong in the assumption that all three argue in stating that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The reasons they are wrong are simple. The constitution does not deal with marriage in any form, the presupposition of their arguments are unproven, and they are being made tools by the radical lobby that seeks the overthrow of the definition of family and marriage.

Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

In order for Proposition 8 in California to in some way be argued as being "unconstitutional," one would have to argue that either the constitution clearly defines what marriage is, or that other principles of constitutionality apply. Since clearly the first issue is not in play, we can safely assume that the argument to be made is one of unequal treatment under constitutional guidelines for one set of people.

In order to make this argument, Olson, Hoover, and the "Foundation" must accept an idea, a context, and a definition of what marriage means. The idea, simply put, is that marriage is reduced to binding legal agreements between amorous partners. The context, from their viewpoint, would be that no other outcomes can be considered. And that forces the definition of marriage to be something other than what it CURRENTLY is. Therefore, based on those criteria, they are going to argue that California's Prop 8 is "unconstitutional" federally, because it deprives people from adopting those ideas, context, and definitions, to call their amorous relationship what they wish to call it.

Actually, scratch that last part. They wish to force you and I to call someone else's amorous relationship what they wish us to call it.

Of course Olson, Hoover, and the "Foundation" are either inherently dishonest, or sorely misguided as to the pretext of their own beliefs. I argue this because their presuppositions are at best unproven.

Even though we have not one ounce of biological evidence as to the origin of what creates homosexual feelings, desires, inclinations, and temptations, Olson et al are adopting the mantra that people who engage in that behavior are in some way forced by nature to do so. Even if the argument compels science to argue that homosexuals are "born that way," advising such behavior is not necessarily healthy. Newborns with fetal alcohol syndrome are not expected to take to beer instead of milk. And as many recent studies have shown in female sexuality, the number of girls that remain fluid after experimentation with homosexual behavior is so widespread and varied in its outcome it would be impossible to assert that something in their genetic code forced them to engage. (Ironically in those same studies, the vast majority of women studied ended up in stable male-female marital relationships as their long term desire.)

Based on the vast amount of inaccurate presumption on the part of Olson and his legal team, they've come to some very faulty arguments, and are being made tools for the lobby that seeks to overthrow the traditional family unit.

Olson already KNOWS that no homosexual is discriminated against in the application of male-female marriage laws.

There is nothing in any of those laws that discriminates in any way against the person engaged in homosexual behavior.

Marriage is a binding legal relationship between a man and a woman. Since that's what marriage IS, if a homosexual wished to enter into such a union, all they would need is to find the suitable party to enter into it with.

Never not once, not ever in this nation, has a person been denied a marriage certificate at city hall based on who they had slept with the night before.

It is not now, Margaret Hoover, nor has it ever been an issue of civil rights being denied. Because quite simply they aren't.

Binding legal relationships between people of the same sex already exist in nearly every state in the union. Rights like hospital visitation, inheritance, financial planning, even severance upon the ending of the relationship can already be contracted by any two people, a piece of paper, and a notary.

Olson, Hoover, and others who support them are not, as they would argue, simply trying to "extend equal rights." That is a total canard.

They are being used by radical homosexual activists to REDEFINE an institution that is the core of our society--the traditional family unit.

Arguing otherwise is a flat-out lie.