Rotating Header Image


Ted Olson is twisting in disgraceful effrontery to truth, sense and honor: say what he could (and did), despite it being based on academic disrespect for reality, he argued against California’s Proposition 8 based upon such limited, exclusionary basis as to be bad dancing. Olson made a good attempt at his rendition of Chubby Checkers, though Checkers, of course, was genuine and credible by comparison.

Olson’s ‘I’m not real, neither are you, so we are all real and they deny us our reality, twisting the night away’ was vague and lacking in specifics as that, and then there’s the incredible reliance on unfounded assumptions, to be discussed in the following. Make sense of Olson’s performance at your peril, though Olson convinced a biased individual on the bench that his rendition was a good one. The result was: nonsense + nonsense equals greater nonsense.

Olson’s arguments were laced with assumptions but delivered with ‘stature’ so few to no have dared to challenge his implausible context. He took people for a very, very strange ride, turning, side-stepping, assuming: twisting. Olson seized upon the handy tool but easily misrepresented context of “civil rights” (or, “gays are being discriminated against by an uncivil society” line of argument).

Olson used a time-tested emotional theme to twist an argument around the human heartstrings and people convinced (already) that they are victims were/are eager to affirm their ongoing victimization, hinging upon the “society is bad” complaint. Civil rights can be a very important context but it is also a highly abused area of complaint and in the context of California’s Proposition 8, Ted Olson used the context of civil rights in an utterly unsubstantiated fashion: like twisting in the wind, maybe the wind did it, maybe not, it is what one is is predetermined to blame as to fault and Ted Olson wants to blame the wind while Judge Walker is sure it’s the wind’s fault.

At the starting gate, Olson based these declarations before the (federal court’s) Judge Walker without requesting any change of venue: Walker was clearly biased to the nature of the case and should never have been accepted to try any challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which defines by a majority of California voters,’ that marriage exists between one man and one woman, as a relationship sanctioned by society. Olson not challenging Walker’s participation, what with Walker’s well-known bias to the issue of what marriage is — Walker is a man involved for many years in homosexuality — represented Olson accepting that terrible bias from the Court, which in turn represented Olson affirming that bias upon which the case would (and did) proceed.

In other words, socially and morally, Judge Walker has a particular axe to grind and is emotionally involved in a prejudicial fashion toward an extreme use of that axe. Walker’s opinion at the conclusion of this Twisting-Imposition is overloaded to a point of bursting with Walker’s version of morality about — moralizing to a point of condemnation of — human society. The man is twisted beyond even one described as “highly opinionated,” Walker is outrageously moralistic from a point of anti-socialism about and in negation of “the majority” and in his references, he’s defining “the majority” as “heterosexuals”. There’s not so much as a glimpse of normalacy, balance or Constitutional fidelity there, it’s simply — Walker’s bombastic opinion (with Olson’s encouragement) — Walker venting about his anti-social resentments about who and what he denigrates as the vast, unwashed, unfair heterosexual majority and why men and women who engage in homosexual behaviors are, somehow, ‘made to’ be ‘victimized’ as they go about their holier-than-thou impossible-to-control venial acts.

Homosexuality is a set of behaviors; as behaviors, it is, then, acquired. No inherent aspect to those homosexual behaviors that some engage in later in life has ever been located biologically. In the absence of biological cause or basis, the behaviors remain those acquired (whether by nurture or nature, the environment, the behaviors are acquired, as in, learned from others).

Thus, homosexuality is acquired. It is behavioral. Behaviors encouraged to a concerted degree — culture sets in, others involved in similar behaviors encourage more of the behaviors — become resolute, fixed, similar to if not indistinguishable from delusions: one is really, really sure that there is nothing else, no ohter option, that what one imagines or assumes is what is real, and, when the corner chatter, the media and perhaps the friends agree and reaffirm the delusions, the delusions become “real”.

So society says, it’s your life but leave the rest of us alone — if your behaviors start to impinge on our lives, then, we’ll object but until or unless they do, leave the rest of us alone.

Unfortunately, the homosexual-behavior-laden two-eight-whatever percent of humanity has become militant in recent times and it has opted to not only not leave the rest of society alone but to impose harsh and cruel, unusual condemnations of society when soceity isn’t submitting to the delusions — or beliefs — of the homosexuality-involved. The nastiest, most hateful — crazy, irrational, utterly despicably depraved — behavior I’ve ever experienced has been by people involved in homosexuality who seek out and attempt to harm those who attempt to step aside from the homosexual ‘agenda’ (assumptions about homosexual behavior as somehow being ‘innate’ or the equivalent of a race or of gender, rather than behavior).

Reading Justice Walker’s opinion, then, is wretchedly similar to reading any number of websites that ridicule specific individuals and society in general, as to “homosexuals” condemning without a modicum of etiquette, others. The imbalance is obvious to most people who are not participants IN that imbalance, but, unfortunately, a large number of “homosexuals” go into areas of work such as media, entertainment, law and public employment and what that has created for society is a model by which society is condemned if not submitting to a series of delusions that homosexuals demand.

Examples of that: “Sex and The City” was written by homosexuals. A theatrical concept of “feminine” “sexuality” is simply, thereby, a rendition of the promiscuity that many homosexuals regard as normal for them, which is then projected upon or applied falsely to females in general. It created (or fostered, encouraged among some) a entirely false presentation of the feminine, of sexuality, of values, morals and of acceptable social behaviors by alleged heterosexuals, thus modifying the assumed archetypes based upon an imposition of the abnormal upon the normal (or, the minority of transvestite behavior falsely represented as being that of heterosexual standards).

This is/was an example of media promoting assumptions to the misinformation of society. Note that that “t.v. series” didn’t make much mention – if any – as to the nature of who and how the series was written and why the characters were presented as such, leaving an audience to assume that female-means-female and that’s how females behave. Instead, it was a transsexual rendition of what homosexual/transvestite males would have the public believe as to how ‘females’ behave.

Additionally, among that misinformation largely promoted by media (the socio-political Left, with media highly populated by people engaged in homosexuality as is law and the social sciences) is that homosexuality is “inherent” or somehow inherited by one’s biology before birth (and is, therefore, the product of DNA and biological development such as is race or gender) — and repeated often enough, that (and others like that) unfounded assumptions become saturated in society as fact, when it/they are not fact, but again, are mere assumptions. As written earlier here, they are delusions — if you’re really, really sure you are Napolean, and enough people continue to tell you that, yes, you are Napolean, and you see photographs of yourself captioned as “Napolean,” then eventually you’ll assume as fact that you are, indeed, Napolean. Delusions are like that, they work their way through consciousness to become fixed beliefs with enough time and/or affirmation from the environment, while never, indeed, having ever been proven to represent reality.

Homosexuality is induced as a set of behaviors in persons by others already involved in the behaviors, or, desiring to be. Thus, the behaviors are solicited in others who are under their influence. Whether personal or impersonal contact, the fact remains that homosexuality is an acquired field of behaviors and is not “created by” one’s biology prior to birth: no human being is born from the womb engaged in homosexuality, and if later they become so involved, they have become encouraged (or “instructed” or “led”) to engage in those behaviors by culture, nurture or both.

The basis of Ted Olson’s presentation in challenging Proposition 8 was, then, based upon these unfounded assumptions:

(1.) that there is this entity among human beings that is called “homosexuals” as there is, of equal attributes, these things called “race” and “gender” — rather, that people engaged in homosexual beahaviors are the equivalent of a single race or gender: their inherent biology made them so — and therefore, the issue of their behavior is one of “civil rights” (they are who they are inherently and anyone making difference with such is somehow unjustly distinguishing as to “rights” inherently theirs);

(2.) as to this entity called “homosexuals,” then, by their inherent biology they are made and society must extend to them the same exceptional or special considerations extended to races — and the “more weak gender, females”, at the expense of “White heterosexual males” who represent the majority among humanity (and who are then used to blame and then held liable for the ills of others);

(3.) “minority,” then, is to be synonymous with the female gender and the races among human beings other than Caucasian and with the entity assumed to be “homosexuals;” and,

(04.) these “special rights” demands for specified (yet, assumed) groups are paramount to any and all others as provided in the Constitution to all citizens of this nation.

THESE ARE ALL ASSUMPTIONS, not often accurate, very often proven to be irresponsible and inaccurate by individuals and today being consistently illustrated to be non-productive, if not harmful to society, prejudicial assumptions. To wit, Affirmative Action is quickly emerging as a non-productive if not damaging social engineering method, and, both Caucasians AND males are very often discriminated against by minorities who are less capable in many aspects and who then, create deleterious effects in society, for society, including for the “minority” special interests.

Judge Walker is said to have been “representing the Constitution,” however, and people claiming special privilege in condemning and the dereliction of society in general — which type of person I believe Judge Walker represents — and his basis for his own particular kind of moral outrage against society (Judge Walker slurs “society” as being synonymous with “the majority”; by “majorty,” then, he means heterosexuals — the heterosexual majority of individuals among the human population — and thereby slurs heterosexuals who marry, and heterosexuals/society/”the majority” who voted for Proposition 8 ).

His rather hateful opinion issued — with Ted Olson’s support and encouragement — in deeming Proposition 8 to be (so Walker claims) “anti-Constitutional” is founded upon the basis that society (that means, the majority of voters who support Prop. 8) has “withheld rights” from homosexuals “to marry” and that “homosexuals” are somehow “made” to “feel” (to the equivalent of) “un-or-non-American” by heterosexuals (one man and one woman) who marry.

So many assumptions, so many moralistic-from-an-eccentric-anti-social-perspective…

There is no “right” in the state of California’s Constitution for “homosexuals to marry” and no where is there any text in it that condemns homosexuals to not having citizenship or lacking credibility as citizens. There isn’t any “right to marry” based upon homosexual behaviors, there are no “rights” defined by homosexual behaviors. There ARE declarations that forbid “discriminating” upon individuals based upon race, gender, national origin and ‘sexuality,’ but Judge Walker has just issued a highly discriminatory, condemning opinion directed quite demonstratively against heterosexuals if not the majority of voters in the state of California.

When questioned by Chris Wallace yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Ted Olson numerous times twisted past direct questions about specific issues and responded, instead, with non-sequitorial illustrations about “inter-racial” issues. Wallace asked Olson about the voters’ rights to determine laws and Olson responded with “it wasn’t until recently that people could inter-racially marry” and when asked about discrimination by the Judge, Olson responded with another side-stepping deflection about “inter-racial” whatever.

Clearly, Olson has seized upon the issue of race as being synonymous with homosexual behaviors (not at all synonymous, however, despite Olson’s laser-focus burning flim-flam holes) and is sticking with this theme of his despite it being based — based entirely — on delusion, on assumption, on handy-rationalization-thinking, on it being a manufactured offense as defense to try to gain special privilege or the acknowledgement of “rights” when none exist, by associating one thing inaccurately with another thing that does qualify for special privilege or rights (race, for example, to a certain degree, one race that may be in minority to others but not to any degree that the rights of others are erased, which is what Olson is also arguing should be for “special behaviors” as “homosexuality”).

Of interesting subnote, also: when Chris Wallace asked Ted Olson if actor, Rob Reiner, was responsible for involving Olson in the challenge to Proposition 8, Olson avoided answering and lapsed into “there were many people who asked me to…” Read about Rob Reiner’s politics, among which is this:

Reiner is a financial backer of Democracy Alliance (DA), a self-described “liberal organization” whose long-term objective is to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftwing groups. Other DA donors include George Soros and Peter Lewis.

Judge Walker’s decision represents tyranny. The arguments Olson is making represent tyranny of the minority over the voters, represents the eradication of our Constitutional rights as voters and citizens of the state of California, and if argued similarly on a national scale, will represent same as to our U.S. Constitution. We the people have been denied our right to determine our own government.


Quirky Judge Presides in Gay-Marriage Case
Walker, Known for Novel Sentences and Unpredictable Decisions, Riles Some in California Trial by Allowing Wide Range of Evidence
— by Justin Scheck and Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2010

Walker Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
— by Amanda Beck, August 4, 2010

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday that Proposition 8 violates the federal Constitution.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” he wrote. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

Walker closed his 136-page opinion by stating that the plaintiffs had demonstrated “by overwhelming evidence” that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights. He added that it would continue to do so until state officials cease to enforce this ban on marriages for same-sex couples, and thus, he permanently enjoined their application of it.

Judge Walker’s Opinion
— by Ed Whelan (on National Review Online [“NRO”]), August 04, 2010

Short version: Everything that plaintiffs’ “experts” say is beyond dispute. E.g.: “[T]he evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” (I would have thought that it’s equally clear that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief” that the laws against murder should protect all persons.)

Judge Walker makes little or no reference to the fact that nearly all of plaintiffs’ “experts” are political activists for gay causes and that many or most are in same-sex relationships. They’re just neutral experts. In the same way that Walker is just a neutral judge.

Article above links to:

Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop 8 Sham Trial
— by Ed Whelan, July 12, 2010

Any day now, federal district judge Vaughn Walker may issue his ruling inventing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and invalidating California’s Proposition 8. This is a good time to highlight what an utter sham Walker’s handling of the case has been—and to call attention to one new reported fact that may add to the already overwhelming evidence that Walker should have recused himself from the case.

Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Walker’s actions, taken together, have only one sensible explanation: that Walker has been hellbent from the outset to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.

Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues..

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors. That ruling was overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. But the portion that survived enabled plaintiffs to conduct scorched-earth discovery that leveraged the massive resource advantage provided by their lavish Hollywood backers. And the sweeping judicial invasion of the core political speech rights and associational rights of Prop 8 supporters had the added benefit, from Walker’s perspective, of intimidating opponents of same-sex marriage from ever daring to exercise those rights again. (– Continued).

To conclude, I don’t support or condone “discrimination” as to “civil rights” set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. What I do object to is tossing anything into the pot called “civil rights” to try to plead for new and unusual rights that don’t exist to begin with, that then dismisses the actual rights of others — minority OR majority, whatever — as falsely blamed for harming others.

Justice Walker may be fine and dandy engaging in life as “a gay man” but he is entirely prejudiced as to the definition of marriage and the will of the people, and in that, is inept at representing the intent and contents of our federal Constitution.

And Ted Olson is not making his many loose and wild assumptions by accident or lack of skill but quite intentionally based upon a corrupt intent to deceive and manipulate our Constitution, for whatever his motives in those regards are.

Think about this: no court, state of federal, has yet to require any attorney or justice to provide the court — the people — with substantiation that homosexual behaviors are the inherent equivalent of race and gender.

The reason no substantiation that homosexuality is inate and therefore the equivalent of race and gender has never been eithe required by a court or provided to one is because that proof does not exist. It’s not possible to provide such proof because, so far, it’s non-existent.

So casting rulings hither and yon upon such an assumption that this is established (when it is not) is beyond corrupt. Calling that assumption somehow representative of what “Constitutional” means is deceit of the arch-criminal kind.

Upon this arch-criminality, Olson hinges his “gay is civil rights” twist. And Walker’s dance card is full. But full of what is the question.


I write as a layperson, a voter, a citizen, an individual not schooled in “the law” in any way, yet, one who attempts to understand our nation’s laws (and by that, our Constitution) to the best of my abilities.

I am always encouraged when I read attorneys, persons with educations and professions in law, who share my perspectives on issues, and particularly on these issues of Prop. 8, Ted Olson’s embarrassing illogic (if not worse) and the issues involved in both.

To wit:

Ted Olson Compares Gay Marriage Right to First Amendment
— by Patterico @ 8:20 am (August 09, 2010)

…with respective comments, among them this succinct observation:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

It takes a twisted mind to read this and conclude “Hey, this means the Feds get to tell all the states and all their people what to do!”

Unless you want to try to argue that the Constitution actually delegates to the Federal government the power to define “marriage”.

Comment by Subotai — 8/9/2010 @ 1:13 pm

I’ll add to that: neither is there any power by any one individual in the Judiciary to “make stuff up” and call that a “right”. Particularly when that fantastical declaration nulls a decision by a majority of the voters.

Comments by others, from the internet in general, that are worth repeating:


The question is not whether gay marriage is “proper” or not. It’s whether it is or is not enshrined in the Constitution. The judge over-interprets the Equal Protection Clause to make a legal decision for a moral issue. These issues should be decided by legislatures or direct vote, not (by) judges.

The same argument could be made to introduce polygamy (or marrying of children), especially since it’s considered moral in many cultures around the world.

Activist judges are using the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution to shape the law to their moral image of what the world should be. This makes the Constitution more flexible than Gumby.


While Prop. 8 does not give the public title of marriage to domestic partners, it does not ban the private practice of gay marriage.

Freedoms of speech, religion and assembly allow churches and other groups to have marriage ceremonies according to their beliefs while having the couple register as domestic partners. If such a church or group has stopped doing such ceremonies due to Prop. 8, then they show that they depend on the state for their religion and affirmation.

Olson and Boies’ argument that Prop. 8 is comparable to past bans on interracial marriage were incredibly misleading. In Loving v Virginia (cited by Olson and Boies in their denigration of Prop. 8), the case involved the invasion of the home of a biracial couple with a forced separation. No one is invading the homes or private ceremonies of gay couples. Don’t invade the voting booth.

C O M M E N T S : now closed