Topic: Gay Marriage
Guests: Justice Jim Johnson, WA State Supreme Court; Justice Richard Sanders, WA State Supreme Court; Ed Murray, State Legislator 43rd District;
Summary: John brings on several guests to get their reasoning to the day's ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court upholding the state's ban on gay marriage. Justice Jim Johnson and Justice Sanders don't offer anything new that is not present in their concurring opinion.
Classic Quote 1:
Justice Jim Johnson: Actually, the polygamist had the better argument by half, because they had the argument that their religion and their religious book allowed or encouraged. So they had a religious argument which is founded in the United States constitution Article 1 also, but the plaintiff here had no such argument so their argument was actually weaker than the polygamists was.
Classic Quote 2:
Justice Richard Sanders: I suppose I would say that if there was a bill passed by the state legislature that said gays and lesbians can not marry, I think there would be a problem with that. But as it is, gays and lesbians can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Time: 01:00 - 02:00
Topic: Gay Marriage, continued
Guest:
Summary: John continues discussing the gay marriage decision, spending most of the time excoriating the dissenting opinions.
Classic Quote 1:
Here's the way it really works. We have an ideology of liberal activism, which is basically what four members of the current Supreme Court believe in, which is liberalism is the constitutional law of the land. They try to use cases to pursue this agenda. Conservatives who try to stop them from doing so are accused of judicial activism. No they're not! What they are, they're trying to restrain judicial activism. It's kinda like the cold war, the United State's post-war strategy was simply to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding their empire. And people kept drawing a moral parallel 'Well the super powers are just jockeying back and forth'. No! We're just trying to play defense. We're just trying to keep them from moving forward.
There is no conservative judicial activism, ladies and gentlemen. If it did, it would work something like this. As many of you know, Antonin Scalia is a Roman Catholic. He presumably believes that life begins at conception, like many devout Roman Catholics. Judicial activism would if Antonin Scalia said 'You know what, since I believe that life begins as conception, than a fertilized egg is a human being and therefore abortion is illegal period, because murder is unlawful.' Now that would be conservative judicial activism, where you simply read your beliefs as the law of the land.
Classic Quote 2:
TOM IN SEATTLE: Uh, Hi. I sure am glad that these Satan worshipping savages didn't overthrow two thousand years of Christian civilization with the stroke of a pen.
Classic Quote 3:
CARLSON: I want to ask you about something in Mary Fairhurst's Dissent.
STEVENS: I haven't read the decision so help me out.
CARLSON: OK, this is her dissent. 'Having determined that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, I conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act was motivated solely by animus towards homosexuals.
STEVENS: Well I voted for it before I voted against it? Would that be fair here?
CARLSON: No, what she's saying is, as a justice, she is saying that she doesn't see any rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. So I believe that anyone who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act was simply motivated only by their hatred towards homosexuals.
STEVENS: OK, I would go back, and my history on this subject goes back I think farther than her's does. I have been fighting this for twenty years. This was an attempt to legitimize a perverted lifestyle, that's all it is. Homosexual has a specific definition, and they are acting out to legitimize that definition of two people and what they do in their bedroom.
CARLSON: Not to legitimize, but equate. Equate what homosexual conduct with heterosexual conduct.
Classic Quote 4:
CARLSON: I will tell you, speaking for myself, uh, I do know, uh, gay people, and I, uh, consider several of them I am, um, affiliated with in a professional capacity, um, meaning you know I work with them. And I believe as you believe: people are people. I may not feel comfortable, uh, with their private lives, but they don't make their private lives my public business.