California and Mob Rule

[MrFun]

While I disagree with what the voters desire, I don't think it the vote is a result of a bunch of homphobes/etc.

JM

Funniest post in this thread.

[MrFun]

Worst. Movie. Ever.

You're no fun.

[Riesstiu IV]

California Supreme Court
Upholding Democracy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speaking of federal guarentees of Equal Protection to overturn Proposition 8:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28marriage.html?hp

May 28, 2009

Bush v. Gore Foes Join to Fight Gay Marriage Ban

By JESSE McKINLEY

SAN FRANCISCO — The David and Ted show is back in business.

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.

“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”

The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California.

“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.

“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.

Not everyone in the gay rights movement, however, was thrilled by the sudden intervention of the two limelight-grabbing but otherwise untested players in the bruising battle over Proposition 8. Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage.

“It’s not something that didn’t occur to us,” Matt Coles, the director of the LGBT project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said of filing a federal lawsuit. “Federal court? Wow. Never thought of that.”

But Mr. Olson said that their lawsuit — which also seeks an injunction blocking the marriage ban until the matter can be resolved — fell squarely in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

“Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Mr. Bush. “The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Olson outlined a possible legal strategy: “if the preliminary injunction is denied, we could appeal promptly to the Ninth Circuit Court,” a level below the Supreme Court. Depending on decisions there, the case could go even higher.

“That’s certainly a possible scenario,” he said.

While five states now allow same-sex marriage, the federal government does not, and federal recognition has long been considered the Holy Grail in gay rights circles.

...

[DinoDoc]

Speaking of federal guarentees of Equal Protection to overturn Proposition 8:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28marriage.html?hp

Sigh.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do hope they succeed under Brown v. Board precedence.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that is the correct reasoning and it will open up many other things which I think the government has the right to define how it wishes, for it's purposes.

I think that if it gets broadened as so, then it might be good for Ozzy's position (which, at least in extremity, I disagree with).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that is the correct reasoning and it will open up many other things which I think the government has the right to define how it wishes, for it's purposes.

I think that if it gets broadened as so, then it might be good for Ozzy's position (which, at least in extremity, I disagree with).

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can't see it as NOT being the proper reason. If you've read Brown v. Board, you will see that it is based on the psychological effects of feeling like second-class citizens, even if everything was able to be exactly equal in seperation.

[DinoDoc]

I do hope they succeed under Brown v. Board precedence.

I doubt they will. Brown dealt with children in any respect. Loving would seem to be more on point if one is going to go down that road anyway.

[Jon Miller]

I can't see it as NOT being the proper reason. If you've read Brown v. Board, you will see that it is based on the psychological effects of feeling like second-class citizens, even if everything was able to be exactly equal in seperation.

Huh?

We are talking about what the definition fo marriage is. The state can define what other things are, why can't it define what marriage is?

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Huh?

We are talking about what the definition fo marriage is. The state can define what other things are, why can't it define what marriage is?

JM

Some states restricted marriage to intra-racial unions. Why couldn't they define it that way?

[MrFun]

I saw that in news on CNN earlier today, Imran. I'm hopeful!

[Ben Kenobi]

The state can define what other things are, why can't it define what marriage is?

The argument is that the feds have a compelling interest in the marriage definition, across their jurisdiction.

I'd advise them to use Reynolds. This isn't the first time that the federal government has played a role in a state's marriage law.

They have jurisdiction and precedence. The only problem is that it's not discriminatory for the federal government to quash all gay marriage within the US, which is what I'll be arguing should the Feds get involved.

Equal protection isn't going to get them anywhere, it's a dead end, AND its the wrong argument for intervention.

[Jon Miller]

Some states restricted marriage to intra-racial unions. Why couldn't they define it that way?

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.

Obvious discrimination.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Where is the discrimination?

JM