Current Article

Former Litigator Foes Join to Fight Prop. 8

By SusanUnPC on June 7, 2009 at 8:30 PM in Current Affairs

How did this federal challenge to California’s Prop. 8 begin? The noted conservative legal scholar Ted Olson — famously on the Bush side of Bush v. Gore — picked up the telephone and called famous litigator David Boies, who had argued on Al Gore’s behalf in 2000′s Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore.

Who will ever forget those arguments, carried live on television, in which the two brilliant attorneys fought tooth and nail on opposing sides? But the two men have “seen the light” on the regressive, wholly inequitable Prop 8, and have joined forces. For more background on Prop. 8, check out Reverend Amy’s posts. Here’s a snippet of Boies’ interview by PBS’s Charlie Rose:

Here are both Olson and Boies with Wolf Blitzer:

Here is the full interview of Boies on Charlie Rose’s show:

Doc99

I mentioned This May 27.
candymarl

Talk about strange bedfellows. It’s nice to see these two getting to together to stand for the rights of a disenfranchised group.
candymarl

Wait, a CNN anchor actually pointed out that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage?

Alert the gay community! Alert the media! Oh wait….
MrMike

The rule of law as opposed to the rule of personal beliefs.
Like Palin vetoing the legislation denying benefit rights to same sex partners of state employees.
TeakWoodKite

Thanks Susan for posting on this topic. It was an interesting interview…. David Boise saying ” I have the scars to prove it.”; As to Ted Olsens verasity.

The gay marriage issue in this state is one that will not stand.
Ted Olsen and David Boise are like the Odd Couple. There are a few possibilities that can occur in the next 12 to 18 months. The original case that was recently over turned was not about gay marriage, it was weather or not the California State Constitution could be amended in the way it was. Gay marriage in this case was just the context, not the legal argument.

The current law suit filed in a CA Federal district court by the ‘odd couple’ is on the onstitutional grounds of Due Process and Equal protection under the law. The CA Supremes made an interesting decision, in that the 18,000 marriages were allowed to stand, having no choice in the matter as they cannot over turn them retro-actively. This would have been unconstitutional. So as a matter of “equal protection” this is a glaring ambiguity in the law and I do not see any legal argument being made, except for “states rights” and “The Defense of Marriage Act” being used. … The case will wind its way up to the 9th Circus and they will either decide to overturn or it let stand.

The SCOTUS will either choose not to review the case and let the lower court ruling stand or take the case. Albeit, the SCOTUS has historically taken a dim view of what the 9th circuit has decided. If the case is accept by the SCOTUS, then the case gets real interesting. If it is upheld, to make gay marriage illegal nationally, all hell is gonna brake loose. If it is overturned, then the whole gambit of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other aspects of gay rights issue will have grounds for legal proceedings in states that have laws barring these rights.

On top of this, as the SCOTUS is still a 5-4 court with the expected confirmation of Sotomayor not changing the balance much, it is a possibility that by the time this case makes it to the SCOTUS, Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg may well be gone and Obama will have appointed 2 more solid “left” leaning Justices. Kennedy being the common swing vote on the court.

Hell of a “Pelican Brief” eh?
MrMike

Hell of a “Pelican Brief” eh?

Could you say the monies spent by the state of California in defending this suit are “The Fruit of the Loon(s)”?
Retired

It certainly is an interesting question. I suppose if marriage between a couple other than a man and a woman is eventually upheld as a Constitutionally protected right, then who is to say what other forms of marriage (i.e., plural) might not also be eventually upheld? Which brings up an interesting question: Should plural marriage between more than two persons be a legally-protected right? If not, why not? I just raise the question here without advocating a position one way or another. But I point out that not too long ago, ownership of one human being by another was legal.
jwrjr

Unless Prop 8 says something about plural marriage, this comment is a rather pathetic attempt to raise irrelevancies and generally confuse the issue.
tminu

No, it will be seen as discrimination for one form of alteration of the definition of marriage for one “disenfranchised class” over another disenfranchised class (those who would want legal polygamous marriages).

In every country where polygamy is legal, females are horribly oppressed, for a variety of reasons but mainly because their reproductive physiology is different. The whole movement to change marriage definitions will result in loss of rights to females. I see the whole gay marriage fight resulting ultimately in degradation of female rights, because deny as you might, they bear the children, the inevitable follow-up of polygamy will harm the females and children.

This discussion is disingenuous because it never mentions the well-known written gay agenda against “breeder marriage”. Where is any reference to that? It’s always painted as depriving gays of equal rights, and never once is honest about what is a very negative agenda by activists. Nor is their mention to the fact that studies show the majority of gay males who marry do not have any intention of monogamy. If that’s not even a goal, what’s the point of marriage other than the stated agenda of tearing down the concept of the nuclear family? Their argument always points to the failings of traditional marriage, but at least monogamy is the goal.

Then there’s the arguments about intrafamilial same gender marriages, though remote, the point is that there are no constraints because the marriage is not a “breeder” type (a term used by certain gay activists to disparage biomarriage).

If gays want to marry and succeed in changing the law, then male-female monogamous marriage should just change its name to something else, as marriage would become a euphamism for “civil union” anyway.
ACPD

I have never understood the problem with “gay” marriage. It is only in recent (the last several hundred years) that same sex marriage even became a problem. For the greatest part of Christian history same sex “unions” were legal and did take place. It was only after The Church began to ban marriage within its clergy and to go anti-homosexual that this even became an issue. For those who claim that marriage is some sort of religious event, they don’t know their religious (Christian) history. The Church only became involved in marriage about half way through its history. The Bible doesn’t even talk about marriage–except where Jesus turned water into vine and that event was the focus of that story–not the marriage itself. Christ never married, etc….For more on this subject I suggest reading anything by John Boswell, a Yale historian who went back to the primary documents for his studies on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality….
JRD

New polls show that 58% of conservatives don`t have a problem with same sex marriage. Conservatives have known that Cheney`s daughter was a member of the community for over a decade. Plenty of conservatives have gay members in their families, duh! It`s time to move on. The problem is the democrats don`t want to move on. They need to keep the gays in their party.

I met too many conservatives in the past presidential election campaign who had no problem with same sex marriage and found that I had alot in common with them.

The Afro-Americans are against same sex marriage and that is why it did not pass in California.

But we can`t let that dirty little secret get out because Dr. Utopia is African-American and admitting that would be RAAACIST!
TeakWoodKite

That what the 18,000 marriages represent. It maybe that the state gets out of the marriage business in the end.

I do not think at this point SCOTUS will take the case.
TeakWoodKite

As a preview to this…

The Obama administration had asked the high court not to take the case, and White House officials had said they would not object to homosexuals being kicked out of the armed services.

During the presidential campaign last year, President Obama said he supported throwing out the federal law but has taken no specific action on the controversy.

The Justice Department said in a high court filing the law was “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

A federal appeals court in Boston, Massachusetts, had ruled against Pietrangelo, essentially ending his legal efforts. But a San Francisco, California-based federal appeals court ruled partially in favor of Maj. Margaret Witt, allowing her lawsuit against the Pentagon to move ahead. Those judges said the Air Force must prove the dismissal of the flight nurse would ensure troop readiness and cohesion.

.
Pablo Cruz

I love David Boies. Apparently he’s a little crazy, but it’s nice to hear someone speak so eloquently about the rights of all minorities in America. Prop 8 set a dangerous precedent that with a 50%+1 vote, the people of California can take away the rights of any minority.
Toxhandler

They are not a disenfranchised group.Legally, the laws concerning marriage in this country apply the same to everyone. Secondly, marriage is nothing more than an act of recognition. There are churches in this country which will “marry” homosexuals AND there is no law that prohibits this. What homosexuals actually want is to force ALL of us to recognize their “marriages”. And that is where they step over the line.
SayWhat

Duh! Excuse me, no one’s “rights” have been compromised. If you want to talk about wanting the same “rights” as heterosexuals, does it really need to be stated that heterosexuals consider their right to be marriage to a person of the OPPOSITE gender. Every person in the country has this same right. As far as most of the other “rights” wanted (or used as a smokescreen) such as being able to make decisions for someone in the hospital, rights of inheritance, etc. Go get yourself a power of attorney and whatever property you own needs to be held jointly. You want to leave your money to someone when you die, try a will!

All of this crap is getting tiresome!