Photo: AP/Ben Margot
Move over Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas. Liberals have a new hero, and it's uber-conservative Theodore Olson. Olson had already won the hearts of liberals and the LGBT community, and had conservatives scratching their heads, when he signed on to challenge Proposition 8, California's anti-gay marriage law, in Federal District Court in San Francisco. But Olson's emotional closing argument in the gay marriage case on Wednesday left his new supporters absolutely swooning.
Here are some of the many glowing reviews of Olson's closing argument in the case:
- Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that "Ted Olson cleaned [opposing counsel] Charles Cooper's clock."
- Jenny Pizer, head of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Marriage Project, said Olson did “an effective job” of citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent supporting the “freedom to marry as a right of individuals that is so basic and important that the state cannot abridge it.”
- Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA: “He was awesome. It was fantastic. He truly put this case and framed it exactly in the American civil historical context. I can’t imagine a better and more articulated argument."
- Cleve Jones, member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights board, said that “I was very moved and I was kind of surprised at what a poor job our opponents did."
- Dustin Lance Black, who is also on the AFER board, stated that "it was amazing today to hear those federal constitutional arguments being made for the first time regarding relationship recognitions. It feels like the first piece of that promise was fulfilled – regardless of outcome – the first piece of that promise was fulfilled.”
It cannot be stressed enough how unusual it is for a conservative like Ted Olson, who has held important positions in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations and whose representation of Bush in the Bush v. Gore case before the U.S. Supreme Court literally gave Bush the Presidency, to be the new darling of the Left. An equivalent might be if Keith Olbermann suddenly began putting all his efforts into advocating that schoolchildren carry guns to school to "make our schools safer," or if Rachel Maddow led a push to outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest.
There is little chance that Ted Olson has suddenly become a liberal, or that he will side with progressives on many other social issues. In this case, Olson says he was strictly following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which requires that everyone receive equal protection under the law, and the concepts of liberty, privacy, and marriage rights that pre-date even the Bill of Rights. But for now, Olson and his new liberal friends seem to be enjoying their honeymoon.
© 2010 Matthew Emmer -- All Rights Reserved
Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles have been published. Just click on the "Subscribe" button above.
Comments
I'm actually for gay-marriage (hell why not?), but I do notice you don't put any comments from any group/person that might actually oppose gay marriage, or this trial, or who might not have found the trial performance so brilliant. Are you the liberal examiner, or should you be unbiased?
I have to take issue with part of your article sir. You say of Olson's work that an "equivalent might be if Keith Olbermann suddenly began putting all his efforts into advocating that schoolchildren carry guns to school to "make our schools safer," or if Rachel Maddow led a push to outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest."
But the obvious difference between Olson and your supposed equivalents is that Olson is a lawyer. And a lawyer must be committed to the causes of clients, and justice under the law, where your equivalents have no such restraints or duties. A better equivalent would be the lawyers of the ACLU making a great effort to defend the rights of those who constantly malign the ACLU. Which, of course, the ACLU actually does. OK, so maybe an equivalent that (as far as I know) hasn't happened would be Alan Dershowitz working with all of his industry and ingenuity to establish the rights of cops to detain people who look illegal.
@Tinky Winky -- if you have been following or research the California Prop 8 Trial, the Political Buzz is clearly, overwhelmingly the love fest between the liberals who oppose Prop 8 and the ultra-conservative lawyer who joined their cause. Their emotional, glowing reviews of his closing arguments on Wednesday is, for them, the icing on the cake, and the latest big story. That the pro-Prop 8 side has supporters, who supported their side during the trial, is certainly true, but it's hardly news or "Political Buzz."
@DWG -- I agree with you, but not for the reasons you give. A laywer must be committed to the causes of his clients, but a well-known conservative superlawyer like Ted Olson is not obligated to represent the anti-Prop 8 side in the first place. He chose to do so, to the consternation of many of his fellow conservatives, and that is part of the big "Political Buzz" story here. I do like your Alan Dershowitz example, however, and I think it's right on.
That is because the mainstream media is clearly, overwhelmingly liberal. I was looking for fair, unbiased coverage on both sides.
Wonderful. Ted Olson, thank you for not supported hate and discrimination.
Whoops, "supporting."
@Tinky Winky: I don't understand why the Examiner *should* give both sides equal airtime when those supporting Prop 8 gave clearly illogical "arguments" (if I can call them that, using the term in the loosest possible sense)--these arguments were so "out there" that only the delusional might accept them. Some examples are (paraphrased):
* Gay people should be barred because civil marriage makes babies, or because heterosexuals might accidentally conceive a child.
* Gay people are not entitled to equal protections under the law.
* Christians were the first people on these shores (never mind the pagan Norse!), so Christianity should define what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage!
* Marriage is the only institution that we have that ensures the rights of children (who may not even exist yet) to be known and loved by their biological parents. This arguments tells us that children who don't even exist have rights that supersede the couple involved, even if they don't want kids
@Tinky Winky...to continue:
* Gay couples should be barred from civil marriage because, in a heterosexual relationship, when one could is infertile, it prevents the other spouse who's fertile from catting around.
* And, my personal fav. from Cooper: There's no evidence needed to uphold Prop 8!
For the record, liberals aren't the only ones that support marriage equality.
I would like know how those that are against marriage equality can rationalize the 4th marriage of Rush Limbaugh. Because he's straight, he has every right to make a mockery of the "sanctity of marriage". Yet same-sex couples that have been in monogamous relationships for decades aren't allowed the privilege to marry at all.
The newsworthy part is the brilliantly simple and logical argment Olson made. All the testimony and evidence presented simply pointed out that there is NO logical, legal reasoning for denying gay marriage. No one has ever been able to explain with common sense how gays marrying could POSSIBLY affect straight marriages in any way whatsoever.
Unless you're under the nonsensical thinking that just knowing gays can marry would make straight people stop marrying.... Really, folks! How can including a group of people in the institution hurt the institution? I challenge anyone to come up with a reason that makes any sense at all!
It is also seen as bad form to point out just how painfully the defense case was made - for bigotry. They had ONE witness willing to speak. He ended up supporting the other side through his admissions.
It is entirely possible that the one witness for the defense will be discounted because he does not meet the Daubert standard. That would leave their case completely without opposition to the plaintiffs seeking to overturn the proposition.
I don't think the pro-H8 group realized they do not get any more chances for witness/evidence input in the appeals that will definitely follow. The Appellate courts only work with what was presented and if it met the standards of the courts.
David in Houston, tell me about it! I married my husband in Palm Springs October 31st 2008, but we've been in a committed relationship for 29 years this October. My dad married 4 times and my mom married 3 times (they were Mormons). I did not think of them as trying to ruin the institution of marriage, but I ask how anyone can think my husband and I are hurting the institution in any way by celebrating our long and loving union? No one has yet been able to answer that question with any logical reasoned argument.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!