Sidebar - In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be the Key

In a San Francisco courtroom two weeks ago, a prominent lawyer opposed to same-sex marriage made a concession that could mark a turning point in the legal wars over the purpose and meaning of marriage. The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry? “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

[Robert]

I am confident Olson and Boies can win the case however I am not so confident that the judges will be able to look past their own prejudices.

[McMike]

Things, it seems, are getting a lot more interesting.

[Mille]

Wow wrote:

Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in homosexual life.
No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that permits it.
There is no legitimate reason to disenfranchise Americans on the legal definition of marriage.
The entire homosexual 'marriage' movement is an ill conceived attempt to force others to accept practices that most find to be wrong and damaging.

Interesting opinions (not really)- but no facts to support it? Lame.

[mrSteven]

i have a feeling prop 8 will be ruled unconstitional by SCOTUS.. i m sick of most of gay people saying the current scotus will rule against us because they are "right wing" bs.... watch most of them will rule in our favor... like most of state courts judges....

[writewingproxyco ntin]

mrSteven wrote:

i have a feeling prop 8 will be ruled unconstitional by SCOTUS.. i m sick of most of gay people saying the current scotus will rule against us because they are "right wing" bs.... watch most of them will rule in our favor... like most of state courts judges....

Oh, which ones out of Scaliar, Uncle Thomas Clarence, Alito and Roberts will say Prop. 8 is unconstitutional? Feel free to refer to any of their previous legal opinions in support.

Most state courts have not ruled against "defense of marriage" laws or referenda. Only a handful of state supreme courts have found for marriage equality.

Perhaps you were discussing Canadian law without disclosing such.

[McMike]

mrSteven wrote:

i have a feeling prop 8 will be ruled unconstitional by SCOTUS.. i m sick of most of gay people saying the current scotus will rule against us because they are "right wing" bs.... watch most of them will rule in our favor... like most of state courts judges....

Hopefully you're right. While some of the judges might be biased the anti-gay measures are completely unconstitutional so hopefully truth and justice will previal. I'm sure anything is possible but I would hope the judges would have to look at the constitution for guidance and not their own personal bias.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

I forgot to make it explicit that I still think it's a long road for federal marriage equality due to the fundie freeeks on the one hand, and happy go lucky unsophisticates like Gavin Newsom who went against sound policy advice from Barney Frank and set back the entire strategy by years.

[mrSteven]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, which ones out of Scaliar, Uncle Thomas Clarence, Alito and Roberts will say Prop. 8 is unconstitutional? Feel free to refer to any of their previous legal opinions in support.
Most state courts have not ruled against "defense of marriage" laws or referenda. Only a handful of state supreme courts have found for marriage equality.
Perhaps you were discussing Canadian law without disclosing such.

How do you know that they won't rule in our favor? We don't!! nobody does till they hear the case.. Do you have any proof of any one of them will rule against us? no! when a state supreme court ruled in marriage equality decisons most or some of justices of the decisions are conersatives/ republicans.. We are not arguing DOMA

Boies & olsen have a good case.. they are non lgbt "group" i m glad we have a fresh eyes for the case.. not the regulars.. they "lbgt groups" are too chicken to take a chance.. most of big orgs only want $$ not equality like EQCA

[Inquisitarian]

mrSteven wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you know that they won't rule in our favor? We don't!! nobody does till they hear the case.. Do you have any proof of any one of them will rule against us?

It's not a question of knowing, but one of understanding the legal arguments, the makeup of the court, and how they're likely to interpret the law.

The chief argument is the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. A great deal hinges on whether one interprets the text substantively, or merely procedurally. It also matters what level of scrutiny the justices decide to apply, and how they view the division between state powers vs. federal powers.

There is no indication whatsoever that Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts would be likely to apply a substantive interpretation and strict scrutiny to the case. A procedural interpretation and scrutiny at the lowest level (the one these justices are likely to apply given what we know about their past case history and the idealogues that promoted their nomination & confirmation) will not result in a repeal of the bans.

The swing vote on the court doesn't seem all that likely to side with us, either.

Now, if you want to be irrationally optimistic about this, go right ahead. Just don't expect those of us who have made an objective examination of the facts to join you in fantasy land.

[Yobyag]

So if the SCOTUS only rules on things once they are supported by public opinion?? What happened to fairness and justice?

[Inquisitarian]

Yobyag wrote:

So if the SCOTUS only rules on things once they are supported by public opinion?? What happened to fairness and justice?

Will fairness and justice result from the court making a ruling that the People reject, and which it has no power by itself to enforce? Look no further than the Prop 8 situation in California for your answer.

The Court prefers to leave the making of social policy to the legislature, and is loathe to intervene until they receive a case where the law definitely requires clarification, and then only if the specifics of the case lend themselves to making that clarification. Even then, they aren't going to make a ruling that has the potential to be "disruptive".

It's a myth that the Supreme Court dispenses fairness and justice. It is an arena where people try to find these things, but one in which circumstances don't always provide them.

[mrSteven]

I GET IT NOW!! you rather to wait to get EQUALITY and bitch about it at the same time.. GET REAL NOW you need TO ACCEPT THE PROP 8 CASE IS HEADING TO THE SCOTUS IN 3 TO 5 YRS.. GET REAL.. THEY WILL RULE IT IS UNCONSITITIONAL.. I KNOW THEY WILL.. Because we have a very strong case and the attorneys are best and they are not working for A LGBT ORG.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

>i have a feeling prop 8 will be ruled unconstitional by SCOTUS

>How do you know that they won't rule in our favor? We don't!! nobody does till they hear the case.

>THEY WILL RULE IT IS UNCONSITITIONAL.. I KNOW THEY WILL.

Hey, Sybil, easy on the caps key. Take a breath until you know for sure whether you think we can know how the court will rule or whether you think we can't know how the court will rule.

Again, it's a question of strategy and tactics, not merely waiting. This point is very hard to understand for the types who can't see how rash Newsom's actions were. His actions played a major part in many of the states' legislative bans on marriage equality. The state by state court strategy had been developing prior to Newsom igniting the Prop. 8 fueled backlash.

It pays to accurately assess reality once in awhile, no matter how badly we want equal rights and how obvious it seems to us that we should have them right away.

[Inquisitarian]

mrSteven wrote:

I GET IT NOW!! you rather to wait to get EQUALITY and bitch about it at the same time..

No need to "raise your voice".

I would rather have had my equality many years ago. That's not the point.

mrSteven wrote:

GET REAL NOW you need TO ACCEPT THE PROP 8 CASE IS HEADING TO THE SCOTUS IN 3 TO 5 YRS..

I accept that this is what some people are hoping for. Accepting the reality doesn't mean that I have to like it or agree with people who think that this is the best timing.

mrSteven wrote:

GET REAL.. THEY WILL RULE IT IS UNCONSITITIONAL.. I KNOW THEY WILL..

Are you claiming to have psychic powers that allow you to see the future now?

You don't know any such thing. Were the justices to adhere to addressing the case without bias, then in theory even they don't know how they'll rule yet. I think realistically they already have opinions on the matter, even if they're refraining from divulging those to at least give the appearance of a fair hearing.

mrSteven wrote:

Because we have a very strong case

Saying you have a strong case and actually having one are two different things. If you think the case is strong, then tell us why, and we'll evaluate your argument. If, on the other hand, you're just boisterously spewing an unsupported crap opinion out your ass, I'll thank you to face the other way.

mrSteven wrote:

and the attorneys are best and they are not working for A LGBT ORG.

And in point of fact, they've rejected offers of help from organizations that have experience in bringing forward cases on behalf of the LGBT communities. I'd say that makes them appear arrogant, rather than being an argument that they're "the best".

You're starting to sound like a trash talker at a wrestling match - all volume and no substance.

[mrSteven]

REMINDER OF THIS CASES:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized,“decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comment...

OTHER thing,'

yes boies and olsen asked LGBT orgs if they want to joiin the lawsuit before it made news, but they denied the offer.. When the lawsuit came out they started to bitch about it and gave excuses like its too soon bs.. When the US district courts said bring the lawsuit on the LGBT orgs wanted to be involved in the lawsuit........ lgbt orgs are being arrogant not other side.......

[Inquisitarian]

mrSteven wrote:

yes boies and olsen asked LGBT orgs if they want to joiin the lawsuit before it made news, but they denied the offer.. When the lawsuit came out they started to bitch about it and gave excuses like its too soon bs.. When the US district courts said bring the lawsuit on the LGBT orgs wanted to be involved in the lawsuit........ lgbt orgs are being arrogant not other side.......

Source? This is the first I've heard this.

[Inquisitarian]

mrSteven: You still haven't told us why you think the case Boies and Olsen have brought is a strong case. There is much more to this than a few rulings where the courts have affirmed marriage as a right.