"Don't ask, don't tell"

Well, Olson was on Bush's side in that case before the Supreme Court, so they're even. And yes, after his wife was killed on Sept. 11, I think you're right about his perspective on life changing, but not the way he looks at the law.

 

The New Yorker had a big piece on the case recently. Olsen sincerely sounds like friends have basically convinced him that, legally, state bans on gay marriage cannot stand.

There is no legitimate state interest in not extending the right to homosexuals. None. Procreation? Old people can marry.

They won't win it under equal protection, because even women don't get a full constitutional scrutiny for EP cases. But they might win under due process fundamental liberty rights under the 14th Amendment, the same doctrine that Roe v. Wade was won under (as well as some shady cases in the early 20th century that are today considered anti-canonical).

They just need Kennedy to flip, right? And Roberts is a wild card, too. I saw him speak last year, and he talked about how, "every chief justice wishes he could be John Marshall." Legacy matters to him, "balls and strikes" talk be damned. Citizens United will be a big case in his legacy, a positive one as far as I'm concerned. Does he really want to be 80 years old and the lone dissenter from another era, a dinosaur, when gays finally win marriage rights from his bench mates?

 

It's OlsON people, not OlsEn. Two separate tribes!

 

The religious argument doesn't hold up either. Atheists aren't forbidden to marry. I've yet to hear one rational argument as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, or how it would hurt anyone else's marriage. I would think allowing a couple to get married during a drunken binge after knowing each other 24 hours in Vegas would be more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage, but that's allowed.

 

It's shocking and depressing to live in a country where your gay friends don't have the same rights as you. I love the U.S., but damn, we should be better than this.

 

The E side of the tribe -- the tribe that's not as smart or as beautiful or as rich as our tribe.
OK, one out of three ain't bad.

 

It's absolutely embarrassing. Again, there is no good reason that states should be permitted to ban gay marriage. No legitimate government or public welfare interest. None. I guess they could go with the "public morals" argument, which is a legitimate interest under the states' police power implied by the Ninth Amendment, but they'd have to then explain why this harms public morals, and I don't see how they get there from here when they don't have a supportive, echo chamber audience to preach to.

And now they are going to have to be paraded onto the witness stand and try to make such a case. No more buzzwords like "protecting marriage" or "looking out for public morals."

 

The problem is this: Being Jewish or being Catholic or being black or being latino or being male or female do not dictate a behavior. Sexual preference dictates a behavior. And that's why it isn't the same, never has been the same and never will be the same

 

So you don't think it's kind of self-defeating for the military to kick out people who have been very good at their jobs because they violate this policy?

 

Yes, I do. Like I said, I think gays should be able to serve in the military. But just like women would have a separate barracks ...

 

Yep. Separate but equal, huh? Because that's worked so well in other areas....