Skip to comments.Gay rights advocates rip suit to undo Prop. 8
Posted on 05/28/2009 7:40:12 AM PDT by SmithL
Gay rights advocates Wednesday blasted two veteran attorneys for filing a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, saying the move is premature and could be disastrous for the marriage movement.
While they knew of the objections, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies - who opposed each other during the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election case - filed the suit Friday in San Francisco on behalf of two same-sex couples who wanted to be married but were denied because of Prop. 8.
The suit claims the voter-approved measure, which the California Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday, denies same-sex couples the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It asks for a preliminary injunction against Prop. 8 until the case is decided.
Olson said he filed the case not only on behalf of his clients, who include Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, but on behalf of gay couples elsewhere who want to get married but can't.
"We can't tell them to wait, what, five years" for their state to approve same-sex marriage, he said, but acknowledged that it could take two years for his case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
While Olson shares the same end goal as same-sex marriage advocates, he doesn't share their political strategy - to win states individually, with ballot initiatives or laws approved by state legislatures. Several same-sex marriage advocates intend to put the issue to voters in November 2010.
Olson thinks both strategies can work simultaneously. But many gay legal advocates are urging same-sex couples to avoid filing federal lawsuits because federal courts have not been as friendly to gay rights issues.
...But if (they) were to lose, it could be a huge setback for the gay rights movement."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oh boy! A hissy fit!
Someone must be rolling over in her grave!!
Why??? What is the horrible consequence of their marriage not being recognized by the state??? Can't they live together? Can't they engage in sex? Does it make it impossible to enjoy their relationship?
In the lawsuit, Olson and Boies argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of giving them full marriage privileges violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Olson sought to allay suspicions from some gay advocates that he has sided with anti-gay positions in the past by declaring his unconditional support for same-sex marriage.
"These are our neighbors, co-workers, teachers, friends and family, and courtesy of Proposition 8 California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity," Olson said.
"Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not."
Look a$$ jockey’s, you CANNOT CHANGE THE STATE CONSTITUTION! California is doing the right thing (did I just say that) in upholding their constitution. If you don’t like it... LEAVE! Move to a state where you can live your disgusting lifestyle. Same sex couples are NOT NORMAL. Stop pushing your way of life onto people who obviously don’t want it around them. If a group of Christians went around reading the bible to every person that walked by them, they would be told to stop pushing their views on others, but for you it’s a battle of “Equal Rights”. Shut up and move on, YOU LOST!
(The suit claims the voter-approved measure, which the California Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday, denies same-sex couples the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.)
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sorry, Nothing in this Article says that homosexual shave any right or privilege in regards to marriage.
If one perversion gets this protection then every perversion would by necessity have to recieve the same protection.That was not the intent of the founders who wrote the Constitution
These are our neighbors, co-workers, teachers, friends and family, and courtesy of Proposition 8 California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity,” Olson said
So according to Mr Olsen engaging in immoral perversions are fundamental rights of humanity?
According to how? According to what? Certainly not to the founder who wrote the US Constituion which Mr Olsen is preparing to abuse...........
I wouldn't count on it. The Olsens were the typical DC power couple. Ted Olsen is about as conservative as the Bush family....the only reason folks thought GWB was conservative was because of his anti- abortion position. Both Presidents Bush put through more big government programs than Carter and Clinton combined.
Beware of any DC Big Wigs like Olsen. He is a beltway insider, not to mention a lawyer. The Democrats are not our biggest problem...politicians are.
The ultimate goal of these folks is to make marriage between sodomites legal and acceptable, but criticizing such pathogenic behavior illegal. They want to make it a federal crime to discourage anal sex. They want to make it a federal crime to not allow practicing homosexuals to be the minister of your church. These folks real target is to destroy religion.
This is the same guy who lost his wife on 9/11? Who won Bush v. Gore? What’s up with that?
obviously he has drunk the “born that way” kool aid
>> While Olson shares the same end goal as same-sex marriage advocates
It’s sufficient to say that Olson “shares the same goal”.
Lawyers just love the hyperbole by assertion. Defying reason and logic means nothing to them, but
asserting something, repeating it and emphasizing it, does not make it so.
The California Supreme said as much and the USSC has consistently ruled the same way.
Looking at the bright side, letting the perverts spend a few more tens of millions$ on another failed attempt to hijack the word Marriage --- and nothing else --- is good for the economy.
I’m not so sure they’ll be unsuccessful. In the past few years, California has passed so much legislation giving “domestic partnerships” the same rights and benefits of marriage that little difference exists between the two (Federal recognition for tax purposes is the only one I can think of). We are now left with “separate but equal.”
It shouldn't be necessary to state the obvious, but...
Perhaps it is his neighbors, co-workers, teachers(!), friends and family, but certainly not mine, nor anyone I associate with anywhere. I refer specifically to perverts who are militant, irrational and want to hijack a word, "marriage."
As for "...this basic, fundamental right of humanity?" Funny, it didn't exist in 1150; not in 1750; or even in 1950. It sprang, full grown, in the aftermath of the pathetic whine for pervert "tolerance"--- in the late 1970s.
Think about it. Traditional "separate but equal" referred to physical accomodations, physical things, or physical controls, not imagined slights.
Specifically, the government may eventually arrest me for calling a cripple a cripple, instead of normal, but they can't legislate the faux "equilevancy." Well, OK, they can, but so what? Separate but equal does not transfer to words.
The word marriage has been taken; for millenia.
Can anyone here eclipse me in anger?
How do I compareas a non-Catholicanswering ridiculous statements at my local and very Liberal forum? [Brackets indicate an attempt at clarification for FR viewers.]
->You reject my intuitive arguments, ask for links, and you promptly receive them.
->You reject links that have Jewish, Muslim and Christian ties, so Secular links are promptly provided instead.
->Secular links are immediately rejected as "strawmen"!
IT'S APPARENT THAT IT'S NOT ONLY THE CHURCH THAT HAS DOGMA.
->The title comes from this link, where your predatory male homosexual heroes are detailed in the press:
->And NON-religious, NON-secular, Scientific documentation links from here:
->Segregation was corrected by Congress, NOT the Judiciary. In fact, The Judiciary produced Dred Scott.
->It's not 4.x% [homo- percentage of population]. It may have doubled from 1% to 2% in recent years.
->Nobody here is advocating gang rape for any reason. [to "cure" Lesbianism in South Africa]
->Nobody else is forthcoming on Lesbian aggressions here, and I expect there's a good reason for that.
->Nobody said that to be effeminate is to be a homosexual -- I said exactly the opposite. Born-effeminate males should absolutely be protected from predatory male homosexuals.
->Former Congressman Foley does not show effeminate characteristics: Like the millions of adolescents before him, he was molested as a youth by a predatory male homosexual priest. It's up to millions this month, but only in the European press -- not in the US press.
->As an adult, Foley was empowered to write US statutes to dismiss his predatory male homosexual deviancies by
->You write to dismiss predatory male homosexual deviancies -- as correct in your mind by your so-called
->Nobody grows up a male homosexual because no child could conceive of how to BEGIN the practice of male homosexuality that is to become "protected". They must be introduced to the PRACTICE of homosexuality by predatory male homosexuals -- whom you are defending with DOGMA.
->There's just one reason you don't answer my question "How many women have introduced young males to homosexual behavior?"
->Because the answer is "Zero".
->I doubt you know how the boys are doing, now that THEIR innocence has been robbed by a predatory male homosexual. [Local family ravaged by homosexual assaults on their young]
->"...I would like to know how many are viewing this thread, the adolescent-homo-sitter thread, and the original thread you started on the gaping need for an additional "protected class" of Americans.
->Just how well did those Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont referenda "Of The People" work out?
->Finally, if you are truly open minded, and totally immune to the homosexual agenda propoganda, tell us howprecisely and exactlydoes "a vote on a hotbutton issue"
[And require intervention by the Judiciary]
End of rant
How am I doing so far? :)