Anything Boies gets into turns out to be much ado about nothing. With enemies like that who needs friends? :-)
Why are they together? The last time I heard about them one was practicing true law and the other wasn’t.
And that's the key to this case that the author overlooks. If domestic partnership's are indistinguishable from marriage, then one can easily make a case of separate but equal, and that is exactly what Olsen and Boies are going to do when they argue in front of the Supreme Court. Anyone who was against same sex marriage, but supported domestic partnerships, simply wasn't thinking, because the Gay community has known (nay, planned) for a long time that once that was established, they could parlay it into the Supreme Court at the right time, and with the right people.
Don't anyone delude themselves into thinking that Olsen and Boies doesn't stand a good shot at wining this.
For instance, states determine unique ages for when people are old enough to marry. States also determine residency lengths of time prior to marriage, and states determine divorce settlements.
If marriage was federal, then the federal government would be setting uniform standards for all of the above, meaning that the age of consent would no longer differ between states, for example.
Yet the federal government does not set the age of consent for marriage...so the federal government does not see marriage as a federal right or privilege.
Thus, Boies and Olson are, respectfully, wrong.
Marriage is a state matter, not a federal one.
He knows that the SCOTUS will probably rule against the suit. Such a ruling will set into Federal stone the principle that gays do not have Federal right to marry. It will take gay activists decades shake off such a decision.
Olson is the rabbit telling the fox to please not throw him into the brier patch.
bookmark
It’s about a word, and the constitution recognizes that words have meanings, hence why there’s so much protection in the constitution for the spoken and written word.
While I’m sure that some view it as punishing gays, or putting them in their place, it has to do with the people’s choice in not letting a word like marriage get mangled by others.
The amendment’s simple: it puts in a dictionary definition that has been around for many years. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Nothing in there that prevents civil unions, that prevents gays from shacking up together. There’s nothing that prevents laws being passed to give same sex partners the rights to inherit or to make medical decisions. All it does is define what marriage is, because apparently the legislature, governor and the courts all forgot it.
Now homosexuals will say I’m being homophobic, that I want to take away their basic human rights. Nope, just want to preserve the meaning of the word used to signify my marriage to my wife. It is a mistake to take this to federal court - there’s so much interest in prop 8, that it’ll get an expedited schedule.
But the proposition is air tight - it is just a clarification of the definition of one word. And if defining what one word means is declared to be unconstitutional, then what in the constitution means anything anymore? Might as well shred the whole document as every word in there is up for a new definition each day of the week.
The only part of the state court’s decision that I disagree on is the presupposition that gay unions that took place before the proposition was voted on shall still be called marriages. Nope, sorry, we defined that word clearly - it’s the union of a man and a woman. It’s a gay union, period.
I've heard many gays equate their struggle to the black civil rights movement and it's obscene; a history of slavery and oppression versus having to hide an enjoyment for anal sex and preference for the same sex. You can't hide being black but you can refrain from announcing a love of sodomy. They love to point out MLK's tacit support of Bayard Rustin, a gay civil rights activist, and Coretta Scott King's comments in the 1990's. Problem is that MLK never made any public comments about homosexuality either way and there is no evidence that he said anything in support in private.
The height of their hypocrisy is claiming that there was a Gay Holocaust. There wasn't. Estimates range from 5,000 to 15,000 of gays killed during the Holocaust, many of whom were political prisoners. Compare that to the millions of Jews and Poles who died and the comparison gets more obscene. Not to mention the fact that many Nazis were homosexual and fetish fashion grew from Nazi garb.
This whole thing is a fraud perpetuated by narcissists who can't tolerate anyone's opinion but their own and who at all cost demand total acceptance of their lifestyle and predilections like petulant children who throw tantrums when they don't get their way. They program younger generations, personally attack all dissent, distort the truth, avoid voter referendums and attempt to overturn voter will all the way to the Supreme Court while flooding the media with their shrill dysfunction. Bois and Olsen are just part of the sideshow of freaks.
Actually, the political correctness Nazis of the scumbag Democrat party would find plenty wrong with a "White Scouts", but a "Black Scouts" would be just as fine with them as, say, a Black Student Union at college.
How long before polygamy is legalized?
Now I am really confused. How come there is something wrong with having a Miss white America but nothing wrong with having a Miss black America?