• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two lawyers who squared off in the legal case that determined the 2000 U.S. presidential election joined forces on Wednesday to ask a federal court to halt California's same-sex marriage ban, despite warnings from gay rights advocates not to mount a federal challenge.

Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, said that gays and lesbians were made into second-class citizens by California's voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.

They sued on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot because of the Prop 8's passage.
Click to expand...
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban | U.S. | Reuters

Interesting, this:

Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.

"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.

Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Click to expand...

It appears that the SCotUS may very well settle this issue sooner rather than later -- and, perhaps, the pro-gay-marriage crowd will learn that you should be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
This would be fantastic news. I agree, having them take on gay marriage now would most certainly end in defeat for them. Leaving it as it should be, up to the states.
 
Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.

"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.

Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Click to expand...

They're jumping the gun, even prominent pro-gm is against this.

They're forcing a court to rule that Prop8 is "constitutional", and that will work against gay-marriage in the end.
 
That's a pretty legendary legal team, regardless of the cause.
 
Seems like such a team of lawyers wouldn't take this on if they didn't know what they were doing. However I do that agree that it's risky to simply go at it and have it be declared constitutional.
 
Goobieman said:
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban | U.S. | Reuters

Interesting, this:



It appears that the SCotUS may very well settle this issue sooner rather than later -- and, perhaps, the pro-gay-marriage crowd will learn that you should be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...


Well I hope the SCOTUS rules pro gay marriage via the 14th. Because that assures equality btwn the genders. If I can marry a woman a woman should be able to do the same by the 14th.
 
winston53660 said:
Well I hope the SCOTUS rules pro gay marriage via the 14th. Because that assures equality btwn the genders. If I can marry a woman a woman should be able to do the same by the 14th.
Click to expand...

Not if Jerry has anything to say about your personal life.
 
Jerry said:
They're jumping the gun, even prominent pro-gm is against this.

They're forcing a court to rule that Prop8 is "constitutional", and that will work against gay-marriage in the end.
Click to expand...

The 18,000 legally married same-sex couples changes game somewhat.

There's now two distinct classes--same-sex married, same-sex unmarried. Only one enjoys the rights and privileges of married couples.

Don't the same-sex unmarried have the right to ask for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution?

This is a very interesting developement. I hope you've been doing your homework and reading up on civil union rights vs. married rights. That could definitely come into play again because the 18,000 same-sex legally married now get the same rights as opposite-sex married. However the same-sex couples wishing to get married in CA are barred by doing so by an amendment to the CA state constitution.

This is definitely interesting.
 
I would not be too sure about the Supreme Court going against same-sex marriage. The last ruling on gay rights was Lawrence v. Texas and it ruled in favor of gay rights, 6-3. Only one justice in the majority wrote a separate opinion stating the government had a right to regulate marriage. As a matter of fact, the majority opinion contained language that called marriage a constitutional right.

Five of those justices are still on the Court with one leaving (Souter). It may all come down to the new SCOTUS nominee. It is still uncertain how Roberts and Alito will vote though, both have done work in favor of gay rights. That is a far cry from same-sex marriage, but it throws a monkey wrench into thinking they will certainly vote against it.

What I find most interesting about this is that both Ted Olson and David Boies are Republicans, or at least they were, I cannot say for sure that they have not changed party affiliation. This brings hope that some Republicans are beginning to practice what they preach and become more inclusive.
 
Alex said:
What I find most interesting about this is that both Ted Olson and David Boies are Republicans, or at least they were, I cannot say for sure that they have not changed party affiliation. This brings hope that some Republicans are beginning to practice what they preach and become more inclusive.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Boies is a democrat and has been for as long as I can remember.
 
RightinNYC said:
FWIW, Boies is a democrat and has been for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

"When he enrolled at the University of Redlands and learned that classes consumed only 14 hours a week, Boies set out to fill the extra time. Although he was married with two children by the end of his sophomore year, he piled on more work (teaching journalism at a nearby mental hospital), then more fun (usually card playing) and more extracurriculars (including, George W. Bush would be surprised to learn, the presidency of the campus Young Republicans)."

He must have changed his affiliation later to Democrat.

TIME Pacific | "Get me Boies!" | December 25, 2000 | NO. 51

(What is "FWIW"?)
 
Alex said:
"When he enrolled at the University of Redlands and learned that classes consumed only 14 hours a week, Boies set out to fill the extra time. Although he was married with two children by the end of his sophomore year, he piled on more work (teaching journalism at a nearby mental hospital), then more fun (usually card playing) and more extracurriculars (including, George W. Bush would be surprised to learn, the presidency of the campus Young Republicans)."

He must have changed his affiliation later to Democrat.

TIME Pacific | "Get me Boies!" | December 25, 2000 | NO. 51

(What is "FWIW"?)
Click to expand...

Huh, learn something new every day.

"FWIW" = "For what it's worth"

Best David Boies story I've ever heard:

His firm has been working on this big ass case for a couple years and now they're finally getting ready to go to trial. It's in a district court down south, so the junior partner and associates on the case have spend the past month working 18 hour days and living in a hotel in the district. Nevertheless, the case is looking bleaker and bleaker as the trial date approaches. The day before the trial, they call up north to update Boies on the progress. Despite having little to nothing to do with the case to this point, Boies immediately flies into town, goes to the hotel, and commandeers a huge conference room. He turns to the junior associate on the case and says "Go get me a case of diet coke and two huge bags of pretzel twists. She brings them back to the conference room, he tells them all to go to sleep, and then closes the door behind them. They wake up the next morning, walk down to the conference room, and he's sitting in there next to a stack of documents, finishing the last of the pretzels and soda and looking chipper. He hands the junior associate the stack of documents and tells her "When I reach out my hand, you give me the piece of paper on top of the stack."

They head to the courtroom, where he gets up and argues brilliantly for the next three hours. He does not stop even once to look at the documents, as he's already memorized everything and determined how he was going to use it. He just reaches behind him to take the next thing being handed to him, and then gives it to the witness. They win the case handily.


Badass.
 
RightinNYC said:
Huh, learn something new every day.

"FWIW" = "For what it's worth"

Best David Boies story I've ever heard:

His firm has been working on this big ass case for a couple years and now they're finally getting ready to go to trial. It's in a district court down south, so the junior partner and associates on the case have spend the past month working 18 hour days and living in a hotel in the district. Nevertheless, the case is looking bleaker and bleaker as the trial date approaches. The day before the trial, they call up north to update Boies on the progress. Despite having little to nothing to do with the case to this point, Boies immediately flies into town, goes to the hotel, and commandeers a huge conference room. He turns to the junior associate on the case and says "Go get me a case of diet coke and two huge bags of pretzel twists. She brings them back to the conference room, he tells them all to go to sleep, and then closes the door behind them. They wake up the next morning, walk down to the conference room, and he's sitting in there next to a stack of documents, finishing the last of the pretzels and soda and looking chipper. He hands the junior associate the stack of documents and tells her "When I reach out my hand, you give me the piece of paper on top of the stack."

They head to the courtroom, where he gets up and argues brilliantly for the next three hours. He does not stop even once to look at the documents, as he's already memorized everything and determined how he was going to use it. He just reaches behind him to take the next thing being handed to him, and then gives it to the witness. They win the case handily.


Badass.
Click to expand...

Awesome story, gotta love people who can do things like that.
 
hazlnut said:
The 18,000 legally married same-sex couples changes game somewhat.

There's now two distinct classes--same-sex married, same-sex unmarried. Only one enjoys the rights and privileges of married couples.
Click to expand...

You didn't think the court was going to just roll over on this completely did you?

hazlnut said:
Don't the same-sex unmarried have the right to ask for equal protection under the U.S. Constitution?
Click to expand...

The already have it under existing Domestic Partnership law.

hazlnut said:
This is a very interesting developement. I hope you've been doing your homework and reading up on civil union rights vs. married rights.
Click to expand...

I sure have, I've been quoting it to people like yourself who, no insult intended, don't seem to know yourself what the law actually is.
 
I agree with those who see this as presumptuous. I do not think this case can be won in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Though I am pro-GM, I have always purported that going the equality route is not the way and a loser of a position. If the pro-GM movement would focus on family, health, and childrenm they would have already won this thing. Heck, I've posted enough evidence at DP for them to win.

Wrong focus, wrong timing.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree with those who see this as presumptuous. I do not think this case can be won in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Though I am pro-GM, I have always purported that going the equality route is not the way and a loser of a position. If the pro-GM movement would focus on family, health, and childrenm they would have already won this thing. Heck, I've posted enough evidence at DP for them to win.

Wrong focus, wrong timing.
Click to expand...

Why people get married is of as little business to strangers as who they marry. When I got married I didn't have to put a reason down. I mean I could have gotten married for tax purposes, fraud purposes etc. But I didn't have to cite a single reason for getting married. That gay people would even have to make an argument as to why they want to marry is simply ridiculous. The Christian Right that so strongly opposes gay marriage won't support gays having a family any more then they will getting married.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree with those who see this as presumptuous. I do not think this case can be won in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Though I am pro-GM, I have always purported that going the equality route is not the way and a loser of a position. If the pro-GM movement would focus on family, health, and childrenm they would have already won this thing. Heck, I've posted enough evidence at DP for them to win.

Wrong focus, wrong timing.
Click to expand...

As I read your post I reflect on a recent heated discussion with another member who wants his adultery against his out-of-state husband seen as socially 'equal' to any 2 parent home raising children.

I'm sorry, but gays in general, as a group, are not projecting an image that resembles anything like what the typical American thinks a marriage is or should be.
 
Hatuey said:
Why people get married is of as little business to strangers as who they marry. When I got married I didn't have to put a reason down. I mean I could have gotten married for tax purposes, fraud purposes etc. But I didn't have to cite a single reason for getting married. That gay people would even have to make an argument as to why they want to marry is simply ridiculous. The Christian Right that so strongly opposes gay marriage won't support gays having a family any more then they will getting married.
Click to expand...

Not when the result is a high divorce rate.
 
Jerry said:
Not when the result is a high divorce rate.
Click to expand...

How is this reason to not recognize gay marriage again? It isn't? Oh alright. Thanks for the non sequitur.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Why people get married is of as little business to strangers as who they marry.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I'm not suggesting what is right and fair. I'm suggesting how it can be won. Winning it on the equality front will be a long, tenuous and not assuredly a successful route. Going after it on the family route is practically an impregnable position. You've participated in enough of these debates on this issue, here, Hatuey. The equality debate gets slammed and countered, repeatedly, and often ends in a stalemate. Usually I wait until the smoke clears, present my family/child position in a few posts and the only ones who go after me are those who expose themselves as bigots who have no position or substantiation.

It's not about what is right, but what can be won. The pro-GM movement needs to bite the bullet, abandon the equality position and use the family/child debate. Does it really matter how they get what they want, as long as they get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom