Tweet
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
- United States Supreme Court’s unanimous Loving v. Virginia (1967) decision
Judge Walker: “I’m asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite-sex marriages….”Pro-Prop. 8 Atty. Cooper: “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
- 10/14/09 pretrial hearing rejecting defendant-intervenors’ request for summary judgment
At the request of Judge Vaughn Walker, attorneys from both sides of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 8 challenge, filed briefs late Friday summarizing their evidence. Links to Olson & Boise’ 294 page brief and other court documents can be found at the American Foundation for Equal Rights website.
Judge Walker is expected to schedule closing arguments soon.
FEBRUARY 27, 2010 – Papers filed last night by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies detail how the evidence revealed during last month’s three-week federal trial of Proposition 8 overwhelmingly proves that the measure is unconstitutional. …At trial, Olson and Boies demonstrated the unconstitutionality of the initiative through the presentation of 17 witnesses and revealing cross-examination of the defendant-intervenors’ witnesses. Put simply, the case against Prop. 8 was made by plaintiffs’ witnesses and the Proponents’.
The trial proved that:
Prop. 8 does irreparable harm to Americans
Marriage has shed discriminatory restrictions over time
Gay men and lesbians are entitled to the full protection of the 14th Amendment
There is no good reason for Prop. 8′s denial of fundamental civil rights
It should be a riveting read! Haven’t seen a link to the other side’s brief yet, but CBS news is reporting that “lawyers for the sponsors of California’s gay marriage ban offered new twists on their claim that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed could undermine man-woman unions. The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.” In other words, they’re still pulling on the absurdity straw.
Olson & Boies were guests Friday on Bill Moyers Journal. I highly recommend watching the video or reading the transcript, both of which can be found here. The AFER team expertly fielded tough questions like “I mean, for example, roughly 40 states have laws banning gay marriage. In other words, you would be disenfranchising the voters of, not just California, and not just the Congress, if you go this route. And isn’t it risky to ask the court to invalidate that much public opinion before the public is really ready for it?”
11 Comments
Bisexuals might make an interesting argument for marriage equalityBecause only ONE of their potential marriages is unlawful.
That ridiculous dead beat Dad sh*t they ain’t gonna hang on us, those f*ckers have been walking out on their families since DAY ONE, way before their was one openly gay person living on this continent.
Interestingly, Presuming said unmarried fathers are abandoning their children to pursue heterosexual marriages, the Prop 8 crowd is 100% supportive of their constitutional right to do so. “Traditional morality”, it seems, only needs discriminatory laws to protect it when a minority group might go against it, hence the lack of constitutional ammendments targeting dead-beat dads.
A classic case of “Do as I say, not as I do”, or maybe they’re terrified that we’ll screw up the whole marriage thing just as badly as they have.
When you have nothing substantial…bring up your best ‘slipery-slope’ argument.
But as we know, even traditional marriage without a bisexual in the equation can produce a polygamy marriage.
Exhibit A. bring in the Mormons.
Fingers crossedOlson and Boies think that no matter which way Judge Walker rules in this case it will go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can refuse to hear a case as in 99 percent of cases put before them for judgement. They make a good point about Judge Scalia. He objected to Lawrence vs Texas because it would open up a window for a case making gay marriage constitutional. Sure enough it has.
JUSTICE SCALIA“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising [t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”
What justification indeed! I agree with you 100%. Well all except for the dissent part that is.
Watch the Bill Moyer interview. It made me want to kiss them both on the mouth! It also made me even madder that the SCOTUS denied us the chance to see these lawyers during trial. Man o man that would have been the bomb!
Yeah, butkeep in mind that you only need four justices to accept a case. Assume that Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer do so, that would be enough to get this heard.
What one should be more afraid of is that this case will go down to defeat at the Supreme Court. Kennedy may have ruled for us in Lawrence v. Texas, but there’s no telling if he’d do the same for marriage. He’s still a conservative after all and wrote the majority ruling in the bad Citizens United case.
Compelling argumentsThanks for the link to the transcript Lurleen. It was a very interesting read. I have to say I’m very impressed with their arguments, and their obvious skill. Really suprised about Olsen though. Who would have thought? I know it’s a small thing, but just to see a single conservative actually defending minority rights from majority rule is inspiring. I kept thinking as I was reading: now you don’t see that every day!
Slippery Slopes slip both ways.I think this sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/com…
exactly!And I like to remind fence-sitters that is was heterosexuals who started us down the slippery slope in the first place. They put us on the slippery slope by reserving for themselves a special right.
The only way SCOTUS doesn’t take it……is if we lose at the Ninth Circuit, and as Arbitrator points out, they’d likely take it even then. If we win in the Ninth, Scalito/Thomas will be clawing at each other to get the case in the door.
Huh?“The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.”
What the hell are they even talking about? Straight dads are gonna ditch their kids because they suddenly become hip for dick? What planet are these people on?