Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court

http://laist.com ^ | May 26, 2009 | By Zach Behrens

[Maelstorm]

Two top attorneys who argued Bush v. Gore on opposite sides have now joined forces to strike down Prop 8 in federal court, filing for a preliminary injunction against same-sex marriage ban until the case is resolved, which would immediately reinstate the right for all Californians to marry. Theodore B. Olson and David will officially announce their case tomorrow morning in downtown, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor General represented President Bush, against Al Gore, who was represented by Boies. The pair is representing two gay men and two gay women who were denied marriages licenses because of Prop 8.

[DannyTN]

I think it also might demonstrate how much gays have made inroads into the Republican administration. My guess is these two are not disinterested lawyers just doing their clients bidding. I bet they are very sympathetic to the gay agenda.

[Star Traveler]

You asked — Why, do these people turn to courts to win the fights that can’t win in the court of public opinion?

—

Ummm..., because it works...

[Tanniker Smith]

I find it hard to see how a federal court could stay the amendment pending appeal when the California supreme court itself didn’t stay the amendment.

[musicman]

}Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court"

[goldstategop]

True. But they if pursue it, the US Supreme Court might not rule their way and set back the same marriage crusade for a generation. I think bringing up federal constitutional arguments might ending up backfiring on the gay rights crowd. There's a reason they pursued only state and not federal issues related to Proposition 8.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Beagle8U]

The want it judged by a hand full of liberals in black robes, that is the only way queers can win.

[SunStar]

There is no federal issue involved. I don't see it going anywhere.

Sort of like Prop 187 back in the 90s?

[penelopesire]

Thanks for the opinion. It makes sense I guess(not that I agree with it either.) It just shocks the system to see Olsen doing this at all.

[Maelstorm]

I think this is futile just like the hope that the State Supreme court would throw out something as unconstitutional that is specifically defined as constitutional. Let them waste their time.

[Beagle8U]

“Sort of like Prop 187 back in the 90s?”

What is/was prop 187?

[fwdude]

Rest easy, Dilbert. State marriage amendments have been challenged several times and appealed to federal appellate courts, and none have ruled to strike down state laws yet, setting a good body of precedent for this practice. Nebraska, in particular, comes to mind.

[roses of sharon]

Olsen was remarried to a young CA rich blond chick.

I would imagine he is another Republican that wants to drop the “abortion and gay” stuff, and dump the Christians.

[fwdude]

Excellent. Where do you find those cartoons?

[Maelstorm]

They won’t even the homosexuals don’t think that is possible. They are a lot of things but not stupid.

[jennyjenny]

I don’t see how this ban can be upheld when you now have thousands of gays in CA who are and will remain legally married. Now, you do have discrimination. I dunno, what am I missing?

[Revel]

Look what your husband is trying to do to our nation. May you still rest in peace.

Just goes to show that there is not really anyone that we can trust anymore.

[penelopesire]

Very sad, but happy he is not sitting on the Supreme Court. I use to think he would be a ‘good pick’ for Bush! Boy was I wrong!!

[Maelstorm]

This is no different than any other law that is implemented and it has a precedent in the way that law has been changed before. Those contracts that fell under the old law remain valid but no more contracts of that type are granted. How can it be discrimination when no one is allowed to enter into that type of contract in this case a same sex marriage? It would be discrimination if some homosexuals were granted marriage licenses after the law changed and others were not. I hope that clears things up. Homosexuals also have an extremely high divorce rate in relationship to Heterosexuals so the issue will quickly become moot.

“A survey of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden showed that. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.”

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

[roses of sharon]

Just goes to show that there is not really anyone that we can trust anymore.

Maybe not Revel.....these are the old Republicans..beaten and tired of fighting the MSM/Hollywood/Academia/DNC war room. And who can blame them? That kind of power over reputations and livelihoods is frightening.

We must simply step over their bloodied bodies on the battlefield, and press on. Leaders will emerge in the toughest of times and strangest of places.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Olsen was remarried to a young CA rich blond chick.

Aha! I hadn't known that.

Perhaps the Barry Goldwater Syndrome again, eh? Rich old widowed conservative man marries hot young liberal thing, and all of a sudden their politics change, very late in life.