SubscribeIn Mr. Olson’s analysis, the situation in California presents a favorable set of facts for an equal protection argument. Proposition 8 created three classes: straight couples who could marry, gay men and lesbians who had married in the brief period before the ban, and gay couples who wanted to marry but now could not.In regards to mr_roboto's question about the level of judicial review:
A hearing in the marriage case, filed on behalf of two gay couples, is scheduled for Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco. Practicing his opening argument recently, Mr. Olson declared that California’s ban is “utterly without justification” and stigmatizes gay men and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy.”I think he was hired on with the notion that he's in it for the long haul. Also of note: Olson suggested that David Boies be brought onto the team to overturn Prop 8. Boies was the adversary in Bush v. Gore, whom Olson had since befriended.
“This case,” he said afterward, “could involve the rights and happiness and equal treatment of millions of people.”
Speaking to about 300 Catholic clergy, judges and lawyers at a breakfast, Bork criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in November legalizing gay marriage, The Advocate of Stamford reported in editions prepared for Monday.Also, I'd like to point out to anyone who uses "homo" as a derogatory term, in the broadest of applications it is a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant "same." Or, it is also short-hand for a member of the genus Homo.
"Many of our courts are guilty of that judicial sin, that is willingness, even eagerness, to reach results announcing principles that have no plausible relation to any constitution," Bork said.
Mr. Reiner was intrigued. The tactician in him saw the wisdom of hiring a lawyer who had won 44 of the 55 Supreme Court cases he argued; the director grasped the dramatic impact of such a casting decision. He dispatched Mr. Griffin to consult with experts about the feasibility of a federal court challenge to Proposition 8 and to gauge Mr. Olson’s interest.
“I thought, if someone as conservative as Ted Olson were to get involved in this issue, it would go a long, long way in terms of presenting this in the right kind of light,” Mr. Reiner said.
Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights
"Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday [July 8, 2009] to seek federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since the state became the nation's first to legalize same-sex marriage.
The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying it denies 'essential rights and protections' to married gay couples.
The federal government is interfering with the state's 'sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage,' said the lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law 'overreaching and discriminatory.'
Others have challenged the law in the past but Massachusetts is the first state to do so. 'We view all married persons equally and identically,' Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told a news conference.
The lawsuit is the latest skirmish over gay marriage in the U.S. federal court system after a handful of political filmmakers led by a Democratic consultant crafted a gay rights challenge in May that they hope will reach the Supreme Court.
It also follows a separate lawsuit filed by a group of married gay couples in Massachusetts in March that also challenged the same portion of the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.
...Coakley cited several items denied, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments"
Federalists as a whole do not like gays and lesbians — until very recently, discrimination has neatly fit into a pro-state's rights position because most states are against recognizing equal rights for gays and lesbians.
if you take a literalist reading of the Constitution that simply has no room in it for discrimination
Mr. Olson structured the lawsuit so the named defendants are two proponents of same-sex marriage, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Both have filed helpful briefs questioning the constitutionality of Proposition 8.What happens in CA when the governor and attorney general aren't interested in defending a proposition like this? It made me wonder what role Cooper was actually playing - this link seems to be saying that there's a procedure for identifying "official proponents" of an initiative that amended CA's constitution, separate from the state government's defense.
Under California’s system for amending its constitution, any citizen or group of citizens can step forward and register to be official proponents of an initiative, according to Cooper. When they do, they obtain a legal status as such. The official proponents of Prop 8 moved to intervene in the case.Anyone know anything about how this works in CA? It seems odd that anyone can become official proponents - what if an anti-Prop 8 Trojan horse group (speaking of Trojan horses) had managed to snag the designation first?
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the challenge, said that where the state’s attorney general and the governor have declined to defend the statute, and in fact, contend it is unconstitutional, the interests of the official proponents become all the more focused and intense, recalled Cooper. “We are the only party now defending the statute and essentially being the voice of the majority of Californians,” added Cooper.
« Older Mother Nature vs. Cars... | Many TV-savvy Canadians will b... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Therefore, I'm wary of this individual's efforts and wonder if he really is a trojan horse, working surreptitiously to pursue the conservative hate agenda by, for example, bringing a weak case forward, yielding Supreme Court rulings that undermine civil rights for another several decades.
Frankly, if a case is brought to the Supreme Court, I'd prefer it be by someone we can trust. I very much hope I'm wrong about him and his motivations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:50 AM on August 19 [8 favorites]