Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 28, 2009
Homo David & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Have you heard about this Ted Olson things? Rachel brings you up to speed:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Gay rights groups are not amused, insisting that it's way too soon to argue a gay marriage case before the Supreme Court.
2
Where's your outrage about "too soon" to argue or fight? Do you agree? If so, how can you rail against Obama for not making changes soon enough?
3
Yes, these so called gay rights groups, many of whom jumped on the bandwagon only after successes began happening--CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES!!!
4
This will be another Bowers v. Hardwick, so if you want a definitive crushing of your hopes and dreams, by all means, take it to SCOTUS.
5
The nervous nellies can just GET THE FUCK out of the way.
These people have THE RIGHT to file suit and will do so, no matter what the shrieking violets have to say.
These people have THE RIGHT to file suit and will do so, no matter what the shrieking violets have to say.
7
This too soon talk reminds me of the suffrage movement in Iron Jawed Angels. The established groups want to work within a system that will take years and years of chipping away at something state by state. The upstarts want to rush in and prove equality on a national level.
The upstarts won. And I'm pretty sure we will this time too.
The upstarts won. And I'm pretty sure we will this time too.
8
There's going to be a case. No one can control who brings it.
These lawyers lend prominence and attention and ensure top advocacy. They validate the cause to straights. They will get covered by the media in a respectful way. The media will show their comments, and show faces of gay couples.
They are articulate. What Olsen said about looking into the eyes of gay folks wanting to marry is EXACLY the kind of human connection the persuadable straights need to be exposed to.
When allies offer to help, offering to do what they want, usually one says "yes"!!
Hope, change and .....unity, right?
These lawyers lend prominence and attention and ensure top advocacy. They validate the cause to straights. They will get covered by the media in a respectful way. The media will show their comments, and show faces of gay couples.
They are articulate. What Olsen said about looking into the eyes of gay folks wanting to marry is EXACLY the kind of human connection the persuadable straights need to be exposed to.
When allies offer to help, offering to do what they want, usually one says "yes"!!
Hope, change and .....unity, right?
9
Read the article kneejerk commenting fools. If Lamda Legal says this is a bad idea, then it is a fucking bad idea. Since they are the ones who successfully argued Lawrence v. Texas before the Supreme Court and oh, I don't know, every other high profile gay rights court case, I think it is safe to defer to their judgment.
10
Federal gay marriage is the last issue that will really bring in the money for HRC and their ilk. Of course they want to drag it on forever, because once it passes, their cash cow goes bye bye.
11
A civil right battle is historically a minority group fighting for equal rights. When you, a minority is being oppressed "too soon" doesn't exists. If we waited for the right time then we'd be waiting forever. Gay Marriage advocates would have to be the majority, and if could take anywhere from 10 to 30 years for enough anti-gay idiots to change their mind or die of old age. It also true, as stated earlier, that a lot of these gay rights groups didn't jump on the momentum of pushing for marriage until others, grass roots groups, pushed for the cause. They are too cautious. Now is the time to flood the streets, to come out, to be open, and to show those around us that gay people are normal, and their relationships are just as valid as any other and deserve protection under the law all throughout the US. I'm one of the 18k couples that got married in CA, and Tuesday was heartbreaking. There no joy or solace in the decision. Our marriage does not console us when look at our friends that cannot marry. We are just as stricken as others. We need to continue the fight on all roads not selected roads.
14
There's a problem with the argument that "if we waited for the right time we'd be waiting forever" argument, the "it's never too soon for civil rights" argument:
You're going to lose. This court is MORE CONSERVATIVE than the one that put Bush into office.
And a SCOTUS decision against you now means POOF, all of your hard-fought gains go up in smoke: MA, VT, IA overturned, no gay marriage ANYWHERE, and the very real possibility that it will NEVER happen. Supreme Courts don't like to overturn settled law. Look at Roe v. Wade -- today's court would NEVER have decided the same way on that one, but they won't overturn it -- even though a majority of them would like to -- because it's settled law.
The current state-by-state strategy is WORKING. Lambda Legal are not "nervous nellies", and they're not the useless HRC; they're smart, dedicated people who know what they're doing. Look at California: Tuesday's decision was a big step forward, mandating legal equivalency, and setting up the impossible situation of two classes of gay people. You want to throw that away?
You're not a "nervous nellie" if you don't want to up and over the top of the trench in the face of the enemy's machine gun fire with nothing but copies of the Bill of Rights in your hand.
These people want to DESTROY YOU, and they will. This is the opportunity they've been PRAYING FOR -- the only thing that can save them is this right-wing court. They're losing on every other front.
You're going to lose. This court is MORE CONSERVATIVE than the one that put Bush into office.
And a SCOTUS decision against you now means POOF, all of your hard-fought gains go up in smoke: MA, VT, IA overturned, no gay marriage ANYWHERE, and the very real possibility that it will NEVER happen. Supreme Courts don't like to overturn settled law. Look at Roe v. Wade -- today's court would NEVER have decided the same way on that one, but they won't overturn it -- even though a majority of them would like to -- because it's settled law.
The current state-by-state strategy is WORKING. Lambda Legal are not "nervous nellies", and they're not the useless HRC; they're smart, dedicated people who know what they're doing. Look at California: Tuesday's decision was a big step forward, mandating legal equivalency, and setting up the impossible situation of two classes of gay people. You want to throw that away?
You're not a "nervous nellie" if you don't want to up and over the top of the trench in the face of the enemy's machine gun fire with nothing but copies of the Bill of Rights in your hand.
These people want to DESTROY YOU, and they will. This is the opportunity they've been PRAYING FOR -- the only thing that can save them is this right-wing court. They're losing on every other front.
15
@9 I read the article, and the fact that Lawrence v. Texas did win under this conservative panel shows that this effort has more of a chance at success than your giving it credit for.
16
Obama ain't fast enough and this is too fast. Credibility issues here, Dan.
@7 ---sounds like you been drinking the Kool-Aid, I think. Legal battles (court challenges)are the ones we are LOSING. We are getting ahead through boring and non-eventful daily encounters that chip away at ignorance.
A loss at the federal Supreme Court level would seal the issue for decades, and that sure ain't winning.
@7 ---sounds like you been drinking the Kool-Aid, I think. Legal battles (court challenges)are the ones we are LOSING. We are getting ahead through boring and non-eventful daily encounters that chip away at ignorance.
A loss at the federal Supreme Court level would seal the issue for decades, and that sure ain't winning.
19
what legal issue will be presented in this suit that would destroy state by state gains?
If the supreme court rules that the us constitution does not require gay marriage, this does not stop the state by state strategy.
Remember Plessy " The court said the US constitution does not require integration. This did not stop integration at the state level, for example, in New England and the north.
Since Vt. etc. can have gay marriage now, it would appear there is no federal law banning gay marriage at the state level, so is the fear that this kind of suit would lead to congress passing a federal law that bans states from allowing gay marriage?
If the supreme court rules that the us constitution does not require gay marriage, this does not stop the state by state strategy.
Remember Plessy " The court said the US constitution does not require integration. This did not stop integration at the state level, for example, in New England and the north.
Since Vt. etc. can have gay marriage now, it would appear there is no federal law banning gay marriage at the state level, so is the fear that this kind of suit would lead to congress passing a federal law that bans states from allowing gay marriage?
20
Well Fnarf, I agree with most of what you said but I wouldn't be too concerned about a losing court case overturning all gay marriage in other states. This case is specifically challenging California's right to amend their state constitution in a way those bringing the lawsuit believe is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution, and seeking an injunction to prevent Prop. 8 from taking effect until this question is answered. What this would accomplish, at best, is obtaining an injunction that would allow even more couples to marry while this works its way through the courts.
I highly doubt the case would actually end up before the Supreme Court, but even if it did, I don't think a negative ruling would "ban gay marriage" or anything of the like. It would, however, establish a strong precedent allowing states to pass discriminatory constitutional amendments, and further weaken any attempts to establish sexual orientation as a suspect class deserving of strict legal scrutiny. Hopefully someday broad federal protections against state-based discrimination for sexual orientation can be established, but there is almost no chance that challenging Prop. 8 is the way to accomplish that.
I highly doubt the case would actually end up before the Supreme Court, but even if it did, I don't think a negative ruling would "ban gay marriage" or anything of the like. It would, however, establish a strong precedent allowing states to pass discriminatory constitutional amendments, and further weaken any attempts to establish sexual orientation as a suspect class deserving of strict legal scrutiny. Hopefully someday broad federal protections against state-based discrimination for sexual orientation can be established, but there is almost no chance that challenging Prop. 8 is the way to accomplish that.
22
@21 That is true, and his opinion was a good one, particularly the part repudiating Bowers v. Hardwick, but the specifics of Lawrence v. Texas were quite different and a much easier case to argue.
23
There was already a precedent, 37 years ago. The court was asked to review and overturn a state law banning marriage. They dismissed the case on merit, saying that gay rights were not of federal interest and that Loving v. Virginia affirmed straight marriage and was thus not applicable. The case was used in ruling against equality in our own state court.
Baker v. Nelson.
The fact that it was dismissed on merit is more powerful than merely upholding the law upon hearing would have been. This new case would duplicate this result at worst, but it would not worsen it since the dismissal was on the grounds of no federal urgency, the post-stonewall glbt movement being less than 5 years old at that point.
Bowers v. Hardwick was flipped by Lawrence v. Texas under similar circumstances. The primary reason for waiting is merely to feel out the potential for a second or third SCOTUS appointment, else I'm sure the glbt orgs would prefer a case in the opening of a conservative prez's administration.
Baker v. Nelson.
The fact that it was dismissed on merit is more powerful than merely upholding the law upon hearing would have been. This new case would duplicate this result at worst, but it would not worsen it since the dismissal was on the grounds of no federal urgency, the post-stonewall glbt movement being less than 5 years old at that point.
Bowers v. Hardwick was flipped by Lawrence v. Texas under similar circumstances. The primary reason for waiting is merely to feel out the potential for a second or third SCOTUS appointment, else I'm sure the glbt orgs would prefer a case in the opening of a conservative prez's administration.
24
Anyone who thinks we're going to win this at the federal court level now just doesn't understand the make-up of the courts.
They're far more conservative than the state judges and were confirmed largely by the Republican Congress of 1994-2006 for their far-right ideology. Judges are just as biased as anyone else, and many hate us just as much or more than the general public.
We might as well beg Fred Phelps for marriage equality.
The thing is, the state by state strategy is working. Polls are moving our way. We have marriage equality in (nearly) six states and domestic partnerships/civil unions in a handful of others. We need people to continue making personal appeals to their legislators. Once a plurality of states have marriage equality, we'll reach a tipping point--and then we can win at the federal level.
They're far more conservative than the state judges and were confirmed largely by the Republican Congress of 1994-2006 for their far-right ideology. Judges are just as biased as anyone else, and many hate us just as much or more than the general public.
We might as well beg Fred Phelps for marriage equality.
The thing is, the state by state strategy is working. Polls are moving our way. We have marriage equality in (nearly) six states and domestic partnerships/civil unions in a handful of others. We need people to continue making personal appeals to their legislators. Once a plurality of states have marriage equality, we'll reach a tipping point--and then we can win at the federal level.
25
And btw, there is no way in hay-yell that Ted Olson is trying to help our community. Just read his record as Solicitor General for the Bush Administration.
If anything, this is a ploy to get the federal courts to invalidate the 18,000 GLBT marriages recognized by the CA SC, since they've created multiple classes of Californians.
If anything, this is a ploy to get the federal courts to invalidate the 18,000 GLBT marriages recognized by the CA SC, since they've created multiple classes of Californians.
27
I don't see the point in waiting. The most likely SCOTUS appointments will just maintain the current balance.
Court cases take a LONG time to reach an endpoint - could it be that the break though is right around the corner and that Lambda Legal is jealous?
I also think the Conservatives on the court (other than Scalia) aren't necessarily 'social' conservatives - many are just business conservatives or libertarians but it's not a given they would be against the right of gay 'marriage' (regardless of the use of that particular word)
If anything 'rights' are a big deal to them - you can see a case against abortion because of this - but I don't see how you can argue that in this case.
Court cases take a LONG time to reach an endpoint - could it be that the break though is right around the corner and that Lambda Legal is jealous?
I also think the Conservatives on the court (other than Scalia) aren't necessarily 'social' conservatives - many are just business conservatives or libertarians but it's not a given they would be against the right of gay 'marriage' (regardless of the use of that particular word)
If anything 'rights' are a big deal to them - you can see a case against abortion because of this - but I don't see how you can argue that in this case.
28
@ 27,
You're looking at this like a math problem, like the right combination of words and numbers will give us the keys to the kingdom. It won't.
Do you really think judges like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, et al. could give a shit about GLBT rights? Hell no. At best, they want us to politely cease to exist. Wishing otherwise seems unbelievably naive.
You're looking at this like a math problem, like the right combination of words and numbers will give us the keys to the kingdom. It won't.
Do you really think judges like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, et al. could give a shit about GLBT rights? Hell no. At best, they want us to politely cease to exist. Wishing otherwise seems unbelievably naive.
29
I believe that Roberts is a professional, Alito as well, Scalia appears to be a total douche - Thomas? who knows - I don't see him being a deciding vote.
Look at that decision in California - if that ruling was made at the federal level (civil unions OK - "marriage" = "civil unions") then that would be a huge victory.
A lot of that 'Conservative' bend to the court is about protecting corporations & rich people from law suits. A lot of Conservatives couldn't give a rats ass about social issues and if anything now see that the zealous religious right is the reason they have been swept from power.
Look at that decision in California - if that ruling was made at the federal level (civil unions OK - "marriage" = "civil unions") then that would be a huge victory.
A lot of that 'Conservative' bend to the court is about protecting corporations & rich people from law suits. A lot of Conservatives couldn't give a rats ass about social issues and if anything now see that the zealous religious right is the reason they have been swept from power.
31
yes, #20 has it right.
The case Olson and Boies will argue relates to California, and by extension to other states. But it's not the only argument to be made. There will be others, probably many any others, from other states. It's simple minded to think that one bad SCOTUS decision can stop the Gay Rights parade in it's tracks.
That's just plain absurd.
The case Olson and Boies will argue relates to California, and by extension to other states. But it's not the only argument to be made. There will be others, probably many any others, from other states. It's simple minded to think that one bad SCOTUS decision can stop the Gay Rights parade in it's tracks.
That's just plain absurd.
32
So, in case the bitching and moaning doesn't work, and the suit actually does go through to the Supremes, what do we do? Instead of undermining our own cause with a lot of not-yets and too-soons, maybe we can just throw our full weight behind this. Maybe?
On Tuesday, I wasn't the least bit surprised, but I was crushed. I cried a lot. I skipped classes to cry, then I went to Westlake to hear a litany of organizations and politicians who support us mumbled through a malfunctioning microphone. It wasn't until the guy with a bullhorn and a mob showed up that anyone showed even the least bit of emotion, but even that was only marched up Broadway.
And now our cause is being championed by a man who has been a professional asshole for so many years. We can't let Ted Olson be our hero on this. The timing may not be ideal, but it's a reality, thanks to the professional asshole. Maybe it's time for all those organizations and politicians to take some action.
On Tuesday, I wasn't the least bit surprised, but I was crushed. I cried a lot. I skipped classes to cry, then I went to Westlake to hear a litany of organizations and politicians who support us mumbled through a malfunctioning microphone. It wasn't until the guy with a bullhorn and a mob showed up that anyone showed even the least bit of emotion, but even that was only marched up Broadway.
And now our cause is being championed by a man who has been a professional asshole for so many years. We can't let Ted Olson be our hero on this. The timing may not be ideal, but it's a reality, thanks to the professional asshole. Maybe it's time for all those organizations and politicians to take some action.
33
@29:
Thomas always votes with Scalia. Always. It's like Scalia has two votes. Thomas: worst ... justice ... ever.
Thomas always votes with Scalia. Always. It's like Scalia has two votes. Thomas: worst ... justice ... ever.
35
It IS a trap! This needs to be kept out of Federal Courts at all costs! The current SCOTUS will wipe out all gains from coast to coast.
37
1. Someone will sue. Organizations can't stop people from suing. These guys are good lawyers, allies are good, they are straights showing straights it's cool to be for gay rights.
2. Again, what legal issue in their lawsuit will result in a ruling that invalidates a state by state effort? Losing this suit means the US constitution does NOT require states to recognize gay marriage. That's all. So no impact on state by state efforts. Just like the Plessy v. Ferguson didn't mean states HAD TO segregate and allowed them to decide not to segregate on a state by state basis.
3. Social change comes through many streams that build each other up then a tipping point is reached. Legal action is one. Legal cases impact media and public opinion. They got Ted Olson and Boies on Chris Mathews right now explaining the law and justice of gay marriage and the humanity of this as part of broader rights for women and AAs etc. Olsen: this is not liberal or conservative or republican or democrat it's equality and dignity and promotes that stability marriage produces (wow, a trusted Bushie telling conservatives gay marriage is good; yes, frame it as traditional and pro marriage, how do you think middle America is going to come around?). Boies: women got property rights and Loving was achieved thru court action, cases produce change that is then accepted, constitutional cases shouldn't wait for a majority -- they help create a majority.
You can't buy this publicity. This is great messaging.
These are good allies already.
Hope, change, unity --
2. Again, what legal issue in their lawsuit will result in a ruling that invalidates a state by state effort? Losing this suit means the US constitution does NOT require states to recognize gay marriage. That's all. So no impact on state by state efforts. Just like the Plessy v. Ferguson didn't mean states HAD TO segregate and allowed them to decide not to segregate on a state by state basis.
3. Social change comes through many streams that build each other up then a tipping point is reached. Legal action is one. Legal cases impact media and public opinion. They got Ted Olson and Boies on Chris Mathews right now explaining the law and justice of gay marriage and the humanity of this as part of broader rights for women and AAs etc. Olsen: this is not liberal or conservative or republican or democrat it's equality and dignity and promotes that stability marriage produces (wow, a trusted Bushie telling conservatives gay marriage is good; yes, frame it as traditional and pro marriage, how do you think middle America is going to come around?). Boies: women got property rights and Loving was achieved thru court action, cases produce change that is then accepted, constitutional cases shouldn't wait for a majority -- they help create a majority.
You can't buy this publicity. This is great messaging.
These are good allies already.
Hope, change, unity --
38
Here is a video of the press conference where the lawsuit is announced:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1567948
Historic!
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1567948
Historic!
39
The argument is on the merits of allowing states to operate on the technicality of a DOMA, it would seem. If the argument is concise and directly related to FFC, then Scalia is on the record in acknowledging that based on the majority ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it only stands that any prohibition against equality would then be invalid, but only if argued on merit based on the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Thomas would certainly follow.
The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas dismisses the notion of morality as being sufficient to infringe upon the privacy of two consenting adults. As such, any rule of law that disregards such a lack of sufficiency (DOMA) would be invalid.
And there will be NO setback. We already had our setback 37 years ago with Baker v. Nelson. Go read up on it. It directly impacted Washington State.
Most anti-equality forces do not want to see such a case go forward because even in 1972, the notion was set that there needed to be a sufficient federal case to bring this forward. It was then assumed that if more than one state allowed marriage equality and had it revoked by judicial fiat, full faith and credit would be the rule to undo such an act. In 1972, that wasn't the case, but now it is.
Pro-equality forces probably don't want this to go ahead either since it's a case brought by groups that don't have a large rights package attached to the tail-end of any marriage equality battle. They wouldn't be then capable to use their own victory as a case for advancing the remainder of their push for equality, as those involved in the CRM were able to. Of course, DADT isn't bound to this particular issue since the court already ruled it to be its own special administrative case. The other rights, like housing, protection, employment, fair medical treatment and immigration rights, on the other hand, would probably get lost in the wash and din of the fervor over any positive ruling, and those groups like Lambda Legal would not have the currency to push forward.
I'm hopeful of the ultimate resolution to this particular battle, but I feel as though marriage equality should be followed by a comma since there are many other issues beyond that. That's not something we'd get if these two are the primary petitioners in this case, it'd be "Marriage equality!" rather than "Marriage equality, and then housing rights, and then..."
More...
Thomas would certainly follow.
The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas dismisses the notion of morality as being sufficient to infringe upon the privacy of two consenting adults. As such, any rule of law that disregards such a lack of sufficiency (DOMA) would be invalid.
And there will be NO setback. We already had our setback 37 years ago with Baker v. Nelson. Go read up on it. It directly impacted Washington State.
Most anti-equality forces do not want to see such a case go forward because even in 1972, the notion was set that there needed to be a sufficient federal case to bring this forward. It was then assumed that if more than one state allowed marriage equality and had it revoked by judicial fiat, full faith and credit would be the rule to undo such an act. In 1972, that wasn't the case, but now it is.
Pro-equality forces probably don't want this to go ahead either since it's a case brought by groups that don't have a large rights package attached to the tail-end of any marriage equality battle. They wouldn't be then capable to use their own victory as a case for advancing the remainder of their push for equality, as those involved in the CRM were able to. Of course, DADT isn't bound to this particular issue since the court already ruled it to be its own special administrative case. The other rights, like housing, protection, employment, fair medical treatment and immigration rights, on the other hand, would probably get lost in the wash and din of the fervor over any positive ruling, and those groups like Lambda Legal would not have the currency to push forward.
I'm hopeful of the ultimate resolution to this particular battle, but I feel as though marriage equality should be followed by a comma since there are many other issues beyond that. That's not something we'd get if these two are the primary petitioners in this case, it'd be "Marriage equality!" rather than "Marriage equality, and then housing rights, and then..."
40
@39
" it'd be "Marriage equality!" rather than "Marriage equality, and then housing rights, and then..." "
Wouldn't it simply be "Equality!"?
" it'd be "Marriage equality!" rather than "Marriage equality, and then housing rights, and then..." "
Wouldn't it simply be "Equality!"?
42
@40: Well, I was implying that there are so many non-marriage rights that we still have to tackle that GLBT advocacy groups were going to push for in one big roll after marriage equality. They want a steamroller effect, but with no mainstream GLBT advocacy group leading this legal challenge, it's hard to argue for anything of the sort in whatever aftermath there is.
43
OK, I thought this federal case sounded familiar, and it turns out we have seen this movie before:
So essentially, "the fundamental right to marry does not extend to same-sex couples, and even though the federal DOMA does harm homosexuals as a class, it is within the bounds of congressional powers to do so."
California Registered Domestic Partnership Does Not Confer Standing to Challenge the Federal DOMA:
A gay male couple sued under the U.S. Constitution challenging California’s marriage law and the federal so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), seeking a California marriage license and the full range of federal rights that come with marriage. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly abstained from deciding the constitutionality of California’s marriage law while the state courts actively are considering that question under the state constitution, but incorrectly decided that the couple’s registered partnership gave them standing to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. Smelt v. Orange County, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006).
So essentially, "the fundamental right to marry does not extend to same-sex couples, and even though the federal DOMA does harm homosexuals as a class, it is within the bounds of congressional powers to do so."
44
Granted, this is a federal court ruling on the federal DOMA and not on the CA SC's decision about it's own constitutional processes, but it's not encouraging to say the least.
45
I think the involvement of these two lawyers shows that political ideology comes second to large retainers. (Someone's putting up some serious cash to get these two guys) Sure, Ted Olsen was Dubya's SG, but do you think he personally agreed with every position he argued? I would bet most successful lawyers have argued cases they know to be losers, or didn't personally like their clients, but still went at it to win. It's called being professional, and these two guys are at the top of their profession.
Having two hot shots that have extensive SCOTUS experience means a lot more to the success of a case than Lambda Legal's opinion, previous victories notwithstanding. They know how to frame the argument and predict the questions coming at them so they already have the answers ready.
The key to winning a SCOTUS case is not morality, it's the proper legal reasoning. Other than Justice Thomas (easily the worst justice in memory), the Supremes are legal wonks who like detailed arguments, not tugs at heartstrings. I don't necessarily like the decisions Roberts or Scalia give, but they are certainly some of the sharpest legal minds in the country, and they relish good arguments. Having a solicitor like Olsen, who may not agree with the case he is arguing, actually strengthens the case. It shows that it is a matter of legal doctrine, not sentiment.
Having two hot shots that have extensive SCOTUS experience means a lot more to the success of a case than Lambda Legal's opinion, previous victories notwithstanding. They know how to frame the argument and predict the questions coming at them so they already have the answers ready.
The key to winning a SCOTUS case is not morality, it's the proper legal reasoning. Other than Justice Thomas (easily the worst justice in memory), the Supremes are legal wonks who like detailed arguments, not tugs at heartstrings. I don't necessarily like the decisions Roberts or Scalia give, but they are certainly some of the sharpest legal minds in the country, and they relish good arguments. Having a solicitor like Olsen, who may not agree with the case he is arguing, actually strengthens the case. It shows that it is a matter of legal doctrine, not sentiment.
48
@47
Well Andy, 24 & 25 qualify YOU as a paraniod nutjob. Please exit through the rear door. And no shoving.
Well Andy, 24 & 25 qualify YOU as a paraniod nutjob. Please exit through the rear door. And no shoving.
49
So are those of you advocating for a federal lawsuit ready to accept the consequences if we lose?
Those consequences being a precedent that we aren't entitled to marriage equality in a ruling that could stand for decades.
Those consequences being a precedent that we aren't entitled to marriage equality in a ruling that could stand for decades.
51
@50
What the fuck is funny about 25? huh?
Have you watched the press conference I linked to in 38?
What the fuck is funny about 25? huh?
Have you watched the press conference I linked to in 38?
52
@49: BAKER V. NELSON.
Baker v. Nelson:
-Invalidates Loving v. Virginia as an argument for marriage equality
-States that the federal government is not interested in gay rights
-Bounces any challenges unless a compelling argument is made
-Has been used successfully as the basis for several opinions, INCLUDING ONE IN WASHINGTON STATE, to deny marriage equality by judicial fiat
It has been the precedent for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS. That is DECADES.
Baker v. Nelson:
-Invalidates Loving v. Virginia as an argument for marriage equality
-States that the federal government is not interested in gay rights
-Bounces any challenges unless a compelling argument is made
-Has been used successfully as the basis for several opinions, INCLUDING ONE IN WASHINGTON STATE, to deny marriage equality by judicial fiat
It has been the precedent for THIRTY SEVEN YEARS. That is DECADES.
53
@ 52,
Smelt v. Orange County is from 2006. Point being, a decision identical to Baker v. Nelson could be handed down right when we're making significant progress. How will our community handle that? We could be set back at the federal level for another generation.
Smelt v. Orange County is from 2006. Point being, a decision identical to Baker v. Nelson could be handed down right when we're making significant progress. How will our community handle that? We could be set back at the federal level for another generation.
54
I'm curious how Dan feels about this "things". He had very little to say in the OP, virtually nada. The only possible clue is that he called the adventure "excellent".
Oh Dan?
Oh Dan?
55
It's not a trap. You wouldn't expect a pro-choice lawyer to set up a challenge to abortion rights in the Supreme Court just in the hopes of a double-secret reverse rejection that would kill the pro-life political movement for good, would you? The fact is, marriage is a conservative social institution and marriage equality should be a cause of any principled conservative. I believe that Ted Olsen is sincere, and that David Boies wouldn't be on board if he wasn't. And those guys are better lawyers than Lambda Legal will ever come up with on their own. The timing's not ideal but this is a legal issue and not a political one. It's one that's narrowly tailored in such a way that losing the case would not be a significant blow but winning it would change the whole social landscape around the issue.
I say more power to them.
I say more power to them.
59
Hey fsb,
Lambda Legal was initially against pursuing the Lawrence v. Texas case, but a local attorney did so anyway. They only got on board as things moved up the judicial ladder. This pattern has been repeated time and again. Lambda and other national LGBT groups say "don't sue," and people do so anyway, and then they get on board and pretend like it was their idea all along.
A full frontal legal assault on Prop 8 and DOMA is long overdue. The critical factor in whether we win or lose will be if we keep up the street heat that we saw last Tuesday. Roe v Wade -- with at best tenuous legal precedent, law and constitutional backing -- was a pro-choice victory because there was an energetic women's movement demanding it and other reforms.
Lambda Legal was initially against pursuing the Lawrence v. Texas case, but a local attorney did so anyway. They only got on board as things moved up the judicial ladder. This pattern has been repeated time and again. Lambda and other national LGBT groups say "don't sue," and people do so anyway, and then they get on board and pretend like it was their idea all along.
A full frontal legal assault on Prop 8 and DOMA is long overdue. The critical factor in whether we win or lose will be if we keep up the street heat that we saw last Tuesday. Roe v Wade -- with at best tenuous legal precedent, law and constitutional backing -- was a pro-choice victory because there was an energetic women's movement demanding it and other reforms.
60
@57 --- It must suck for you to live in a binary world where you only ever have two extreme choices.
62
I don't get it. THE most important story of the decade concerning teh Gays and this wimpy thread is all there is in The Stranger pages?
Well, while we're waiting for more stories, links and opinions...
Here's a fun bit o' crazy:
Senior pastor Miles McPhereson from The Rock church in San Diego on CNN Tuesday talking about why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
Q- Why not allow people who are in love to get married?
A- Should you allow three people who are in love to get married, or a man and a teenager? There are lines drawn for many couples who cannot get married. It's not only about love it's about building a family. You know, if you look at the black community, historically, you see all these kids who are getting in trouble because they don't have a mother and a father in the home.
Q- Why not a mother and a mother, or a father and a father?
A- Because God didn't create the family that way. You can't have a family unless you have a mother and a father. And a kid needs a mother and a father to nuture their personality and their character.
Q- You have said people who are for traditional marriage are not anti-gay. Some people might laugh at that, so explain that.
A- Well, if I say I'm for traditional marriage... there are many combinations of people who can get married yet none of those combinations are arguing "why can't three people get married?", because if it's only about love why can't three, four or five people get married? Why is it only two? And the reason it's only two is because that's the way it was biblically setup in the beginning. And so I think to be for something there are obviously things that you're... you're going to be against but it's all about what you're for. For five thousand years marriage has been between a man and a woman. For five thousand years the strongest families come from a mother and a father and that's what we're for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqq-9gwnW…
More...
Well, while we're waiting for more stories, links and opinions...
Here's a fun bit o' crazy:
Senior pastor Miles McPhereson from The Rock church in San Diego on CNN Tuesday talking about why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
Q- Why not allow people who are in love to get married?
A- Should you allow three people who are in love to get married, or a man and a teenager? There are lines drawn for many couples who cannot get married. It's not only about love it's about building a family. You know, if you look at the black community, historically, you see all these kids who are getting in trouble because they don't have a mother and a father in the home.
Q- Why not a mother and a mother, or a father and a father?
A- Because God didn't create the family that way. You can't have a family unless you have a mother and a father. And a kid needs a mother and a father to nuture their personality and their character.
Q- You have said people who are for traditional marriage are not anti-gay. Some people might laugh at that, so explain that.
A- Well, if I say I'm for traditional marriage... there are many combinations of people who can get married yet none of those combinations are arguing "why can't three people get married?", because if it's only about love why can't three, four or five people get married? Why is it only two? And the reason it's only two is because that's the way it was biblically setup in the beginning. And so I think to be for something there are obviously things that you're... you're going to be against but it's all about what you're for. For five thousand years marriage has been between a man and a woman. For five thousand years the strongest families come from a mother and a father and that's what we're for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqq-9gwnW…
63
It is brilliant.
Conservative gunner brings the lawsuit,
takes the case to the Supreme Court,
throws the arguments and loses the case-
setting homos back 25 years...
Conservative gunner brings the lawsuit,
takes the case to the Supreme Court,
throws the arguments and loses the case-
setting homos back 25 years...
64
@62
I guess I should mention that my ultimate romantic fantasy, back in the early 70s, was to marry two or three wonderful men AT THE SAME TIME!!
I guess I should mention that my ultimate romantic fantasy, back in the early 70s, was to marry two or three wonderful men AT THE SAME TIME!!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (64) RSS