Olson, Titus Open the Floodgates of Hysteria

The Worldnetdaily discusses a new “report” — makes it sound like some sort of study, doesn’t it? — about the “repercussions of titanic proportions” that will result from allowing gay people to get married. The “report,” by legal theocrats William Olson and Herb Titus, is a textbook example of dishonest and mindless hysteria.

A legal team that has defended biblical marriage in cases dating back to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case in which the Supreme Court ruled homosexual sodomy is constitutionally protected says the impact of the coming decision on same-sex “marriage” could be of titanic proportions.

Virtually every family law in the nation, including those regarding inheritance, support, custody, adoption, divorce, testimonial privileges, interests in land and conveyance would have to be changed, and that’s just the start.

The warning comes from William J. Olson, who served in various offices during the Reagan administration, and Herbert W. Titus, who taught constitutional law for 26 years and is the founding dean of Regent Law School.

Wow, all those laws would have to be changed. How compelling. You know how they’ll have to be changed? By applying the same to married spouses of the same sex in addition to married spouses of the opposite sex. My goodness, how will we ever survive such massive upheaval?

The team argued for traditional marriage in the Lawrence case, in California’s Proposition 8 battle, in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and in other related cases.

They did not argue for “traditional marriage” in the Lawrence case because that case had nothing to do with marriage. What they argued for was that the government should still be allowed to throw people in jail merely for being gay. Because they really believe that the government has and should have such authority. Why? Because the Bible says so and they are theocrats who think the Bible should be the civil and criminal law of the land.

They wrote in a recent friend-of-the-court brief, part of which was published at American Vision, that the case “before this court is this nation’s tower of Babel.”

Two notes. First, American Vision is a Christian Reconstructionist site. Second, there is one clear difference between this case and the tower of Babel — this case exists.

The said any decision “will have repercussions of titanic proportions.”…

Also, speech based on the Bible no longer necessarily would be allowed in churches, they argued.

“Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Even websites which offer information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior would be banned as ‘hate speech.’”

See, this is really the litmus test for what kind of person we’re dealing with. Any lawyer who makes this claim is a liar. It really is that simple. This claim is so completely ludicrous and the only way one could believe it is if they are incredibly ignorant of the law. Titus and Olson are not ignorant of the law, so the only choice left is that they are liars. They are lying to people to make them afraid of this dystopic future for which there is no minimally plausible pathway. It’s pure demagoguery.

"If think that if a man is concerned about a woman's purity, he ought to ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Well, if he has sex with them, then they aren't pure anymore, are they? So ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"My high school had a Christian Fellowship of the Ring Club."

Local School Has Another Proselytizing Teacher
"slight typo, although I do like the idea of Fox News just being a Lego ..."

Fox News Allows Judge Jeanine to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, just because they’re lying doesn’t mean it’s not true! (Eph 7:17)

  • daved

    Virtually every family law in the nation, including those regarding inheritance, support, custody, adoption, divorce, testimonial privileges, interests in land and conveyance would have to be changed, and that’s just the start.

    This strikes me as highly implausible. Why would these laws need to be changed? They apply to married couples. Now there would be a bunch of new married couples. How does this change anything?

  • John Pieret

    What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” don’t you lying morons understand?

    As to all those laws, even in those instances where references to spouses are gender specific, the courts will just interpret such terminology as referring to “spouse.” End of problem.

  • Trebuchet

    Off topic, but speaking of the Supreme Court:

    Eight Black-Robed Tyrants have just imposed Sharia Law by forcing Abercrombie and Fitch to discriminate against Christians who don’t wear headscarfs. Or something.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32967135

  • raven

    Also, speech based on the Bible no longer necessarily would be allowed in churches, they argued.

    “Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Even websites which offer information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior would be banned as ‘hate speech.’”

    And in related news, a large red chicken has just announced that…the sky is falling!!!

    The xians are so amusing when they try to think.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    They wrote in a recent friend-of-the-court brief, part of which was published at American Vision, that the case “before this court is this nation’s tower of Babel.”

    Does this mean I will not be able to read the language of the opinion? God is going to confuse our language (while also respecting our free will)? As soon as it is published or read, it will all sound all foreigny to me?

  • cptdoom

    Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Even websites which offer information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior would be banned as “hate speech.”

    It’s totally true. Just look at the Catholic Church since no-fault divorce was imposed by the tyrants of our government. Catholic churches are no longer allowed to preach the divorce and remarriage are sins and are forced to “marry” those who have been divorced. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen.

  • whheydt

    Re; theschwa @ #6….

    It has already happened. Most legal documents sound all foreigny now when I try to read them.

  • moarscienceplz

    Wow, all those laws would have to be changed. How compelling.

    Think of all the lawyers who will have to replace all those ponderous law tomes they sit in front of when they record their TV ads! Have you no compassion Ed?

  • caseloweraz

    Olson & Titus: Virtually every family law in the nation, including those regarding inheritance, support, custody, adoption, divorce, testimonial privileges, interests in land and conveyance would have to be changed, and that’s just the start.

    Sure! It would be just like the upheaval that took place after Loving v. Virginia. Remember all the piles of obsolete law books, tossed out of offices and cluttering up the streets? Remember the lawyers working 24/7 in shifts to bring everything up to date?

    Neither do I.

  • theguy

    “Second, there is one clear difference between this case and the tower of Babel — this case exists.”

    I guess the fundies are saying that gay marriage is an example of our pride and rebellion against their God. I think gay marriage is a sign of doing the morally right thing, and fundamentalists have too much pride to admit the Bible is wrong on this point.

  • stumble

    To be fair, the text of a lot of laws will need to be changed, and widespread adoption of gay marriage will cause some legislatures to need to modify some laws. But I can’t see how that is relevant to the point he is trying to make.

    For instance Louisiana family law is rife with things like “…since the separated husband and wife are not…” LA RS 9:309 (A) But this isn’t exactly a difficult fix.

    Honestly the biggest issue I see is in child paternity issues. Where a Husband is legally assumed to be the father of an inboard child. Factual reality prevents this assumption from applying in a same sex marriage, so some other scheme will need to be worked out. Ideally the presumption that a child of the marriage is the child of both spouses equally in a same sex marriage. Otherwise every birth to a same sex couple would require adoption proceedings of some sort.

    While I don’t see this swaying the Supreme Court, there is a legitimate concerns in the laval community about how to deal with these issues. Even among practitioners who support SSM.

  • abb3w

    “Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that miscegenation is sin. Even publications which offer information about withdrawing from race-mixing behavior would be banned as ‘hate speech.’”

    Nigh fifty years on, aaaaaaaand… nope.

    Granted, such publications and pastors indeed face widespread social condemnation; but that’s slightly different from legal consequences.

  • grumpyoldfart

    It’s pure demagoguery.

    And it’s keeping them rich.

  • dmcclean

    I was wondering, what’s the opposite of a qualification?

    … is the founding dean of Regent Law School

  • eric

    They wrote in a recent friend-of-the-court brief, part of which was published at American Vision, that the case “before this court is this nation’s tower of Babel.”

    I like it. Yes, we are building something new and momentous. Yes, (if there is a God), God might see what we do here, and because of it come to fear what else we humans might accomplish in the future if we work together instead of at cross-purposes. Good analogy.