PDA

View Full Version : Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban



hazlnut
05-28-2009, 12:27 AM
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54Q4DG20090527?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two lawyers who squared off in the legal battle over the 2000 U.S. presidential election teamed up on Wednesday to challenge California's gay marriage ban in a move that if successful would allow same-sex couples to wed anywhere in the United States.

I only posted this because no one else did. I'm know where most of you stand on this issue. This latest development addresses the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Because the Ca SC left the 18,000 same-sex marriages intact, the same-sex couples not married but wishing to, may be seen as being denied equal protection.

Does the amendment to Ca Constitution violate the U.S. Constitution? It's an interesting development in many ways, not the least of which is the reputations of Ted Olson and David Boies.

Gay right advocates see this as a risky move with the current makeup of the Supreme Court.


The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two same-sex California couples barred from marrying under the voter-approved measure, Proposition 8, puts them at odds with gay rights advocates who see a federal court challenge as risky.

Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, have avoided going to federal court after losses at state ballot boxes and in state courtrooms.


Ironically, with a 14th Amendment issue, a conservative court might not vote the way conservatives would like them to on this issue.

Boise points out that Tuesday's decision by the CA SC only confirmed that Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the state constitution under the state ballot initiative process:


By contrast, Boies said, the California high court's ruling was very narrow, holding only that Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the state's constitution under state law. The question of whether Prop 8 was constitutional under federal law was left undecided, he said.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 04:17 AM
There is hope for you and your life mate. :D


Joking aside its just a matter of time to the degenerates get gay marriage passed, as more and more liberal pussies have kids there will be more and more little pussies to vote shit like this in. :(


I remember the good ole days when they we're forced to stay in the closet.

djones520
05-28-2009, 05:33 AM
There is hope for you and your life mate. :D


Joking aside its just a matter of time to the degenerates get gay marriage passed, as more and more liberal pussies have kids there will be more and more little pussies to vote shit like this in. :(


I remember the good ole days when they we're forced to stay in the closet.

Dude, honestly... could you sound anymore like a stereotypical homophobe?

Japandroid
05-28-2009, 05:40 AM
He's proud of it.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 06:33 AM
Dude, honestly... could you sound anymore like a stereotypical homophobe?


Nope I dont. I am a firm believer in keeping what you do in your bedroom IN YOUR BEDROOM.


I am sick and tired of the glorification of the homo lifestyle on TV, movies etc.

I am sick and TIRED of hearing about the homo's wanting their lifestyle choices written into civil rights laws. i.e. Gay marriage, adoption laws etc.

So please kiss my ass if you dont like it.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 06:35 AM
He's proud of it.



I am glad you disapprove of it.

stsinner
05-28-2009, 11:22 AM
There is hope for you and your life mate. :D


Joking aside its just a matter of time to the degenerates get gay marriage passed, as more and more liberal pussies have kids there will be more and more little pussies to vote shit like this in. :(


I remember the good ole days when they we're forced to stay in the closet.

+1

samurai
05-28-2009, 11:44 AM
Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54Q4DG20090527?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true)



I only posted this because no one else did. I'm know where most of you stand on this issue. This latest development addresses the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Because the Ca SC left the 18,000 same-sex marriages intact, the same-sex couples not married but wishing to, may be seen as being denied equal protection.

Does the amendment to Ca Constitution violate the U.S. Constitution? It's an interesting development in many ways, not the least of which is the reputations of Ted Olson and David Boies.

Gay right advocates see this as a risky move with the current makeup of the Supreme Court.



Ironically, with a 14th Amendment issue, a conservative court might not vote the way conservatives would like them to on this issue.

Boise points out that Tuesday's decision by the CA SC only confirmed that Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the state constitution under the state ballot initiative process:

Not annulling the 18,000 marriages was perhaps a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing, but the court followed US law. If they had, it would have been a logistical nightmare of division of assets, etc, and it would have made the amendment retroactive, which is not the common practice. For instance, when the Prohibition amendment was passed, it wasn't illegal to have consumed alcohol in the past, only from that point forward. And when Prohibition was repealed, it didn't retroactively absolve people who had been caught breaking the law before that amendment, as far as I know. And there have been numerous California amendments, none of which I can think of that were retroactive. Amendments are typically "From this point on, this change is in effect...", so I think the SC made the right decision not to annul the marriages.

Given that, I think their case is very shaky, and probably won't stand up, and shouldn't stand. There is a great deal of precedent of non-retroactive laws, and in fact, the Constitution expressly forbids Ex Post Facto laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_9:_Limits_on_Congress


Article 1, Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

An ex post facto law makes an act criminal that was committed before the law was passed, i.e. that was not illegal at the time it occurred.

hazlnut
05-31-2009, 10:08 AM
I have not heard any comments on Ted Olson's involvement in this case. He of course argued before the supreme court and won Bush vs. Gore -- Then went on to become solicitor general for Bush.

In a statement regarding the case Ted Olson said:


"This is a federal question," Olson said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

He said that he and Boies, who have become close friends in the years since Bush v. Gore, decided to collaborate on the issue.

"We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans," Olson said.

LINK (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/26/state/n161614D94.DTL&type=politics)

Any thoughts?

samurai
05-31-2009, 12:44 PM
I have not heard any comments on Ted Olson's involvement in this case. He of course argued before the supreme court and won Bush vs. Gore -- Then went on to become solicitor general for Bush.

In a statement regarding the case Ted Olson said:



LINK (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/26/state/n161614D94.DTL&type=politics)

Any thoughts?

I find the argument to be weak. After all, gays DO have the exact same rights as everyone else, as I've said before. They just don't like those rights, and want NEW rights instead. If Prop 8 said "gay's and lesbians are not allowed to be married to anyone", they'd have a case. But it didn't. And if you believe their argument, that "Not being allowed to marry anyone or anything of their choice is a violation of their rights and makes them a 2nd class citizen", HOW can you then draw any lines preventing polygamy and a whole lot of other things? Legally, it's the same argument. An argument that for the entire existence of this country has been found to be specious.

Just because someone doesn't particularly like or want to exercise a privilege they have, and instead want some other privilege that no one else has ever had (until very recently and a few bad decisions, anyway), it doesn't mean they are "2nd class". Not every straight person wants to get married either, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make them 2nd class.