Posted on 05/26/2009 6:12:50 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at laist.com ...
Thanks for your reply. I’ve no doubt about the divorce rates you quote and suspect it’s one of the reasons many/most lawyers seem to be in favor of them being allowed to marry. ;)
The fatcat gay billionaires holding their anti-Prop 8 planning meeting at the exclusive SF bathhouse ordered that "boys" be hired for the weekend, but their sycophantic underlings misinterpreted the order.
They were “married” before the constituion was changed, legally, by the people. Constituional changes are not retroactive...they can not change what happened in the past. I wish they could! Slavery would have disappeared from history!
What will happen is gays will use the married gay couples as an example of why all should be allowed to marry. That will work only if no one keeps track of the divorce statistics which will be very high.
FReeper "pookie18" posts them, and I "borrow" them!! I pinged Pookie to this post so pookie can Freepmail you to let you know where to see pookie18's great (and very hard) work is posted Mon-Fri.
Thanks for your reply to my post!
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12453628
(snip)
Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This is a federal question,” Olson said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.”
He said that he and Boies, who have become close friends in the years since Bush v. Gore, decided to collaborate on the issue.
“We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans,” Olson said.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Friday, before the California Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding the state’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage.
The lawsuit argues that Proposition 8 creates a category of “second-class citizens” in violation of the U.S. Constitution. It seeks a preliminary injunction against imposition of the amendment until the lawsuit is resolved, immediately reinstating marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The lawsuit names six California officials as defendants, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown. It cites numerous precedents including the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. It cites language in that decision that holds “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
The lawyers said that by relegating same-sex unions to “the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership,” California is violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all.
They cite numerous alleged violations of the federal amendment including singling out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status and discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
“We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens,” Olson said.
(snip)
Prop 187 prohibited illegal immigrants from using public healthcare and public education in California.
It was found to be unconstitutional by a federal court, according to Wikipedia.
Wow. Ted Olsen... who knew?
Ted and his boyfriend make quite a pair. It will be interesting to see if their gambit works.
No, you are incorrect.
It was a single scumbag, one activist liberal judge, who proclaimed Prop 187 unconstitutional, and the cowards of the California GOP simply let the issue die.
Um, maybe someone should explain to Ted that homosexual marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival" and if that was the only type of marriage there was, man would not survive.
More:
Sept 14, 1999 - LA Times:
The long court fight over Proposition 187, which sought to bar illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits and services, was ended Monday by the federal judge who first found most of the initiative unconstitutional in 1994.
U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer approved a July agreement between the state and civil rights groups to drop remaining challenges to her rulings that Proposition 187 violated the U.S. Constitution.
Her original ruling, issued shortly after voters passed the initiative, barred enforcement of most of Proposition 187’s provisions.
Proposition 187, which was approved by nearly 60% of California voters, would have denied public education, social services and nonemergency health care to illegal immigrants, who were already ineligible for most health and welfare benefits under federal law.
The measure would also have required teachers, doctors and other service providers to report suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
Pfaelzer issued a follow-up ruling in 1997 that the core of the initiative conflicted with the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration. She said the education ban conflicted with a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that required Texas to keep public schools available to all residents regardless of immigration status.
Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, took office after his Republican predecessor, Pete Wilson, had challenged the judge’s ruling. At Davis’ request, a mediator supervised negotiations with Proposition 187 opponents, resulting in the July agreement by Davis not to appeal Pfaelzer’s ruling.
All that will remain of Proposition 187 are two relatively minor laws that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal illegal immigration status.
How one likes or has sex is not a civil right. What an insult to claim that opposing a sexual perversion is bigotry.
> Too bad there aren’t pitbulls fighting Roe v Wade like
> this. The left never gives up till they get their way,
> then it’s “the law of the land”.
That’s how the Left got the Roe v. Wade decision in the first place.
You know how cabalistic the homosexual movement is. They rely on closeted allies, secrets, and secret favors, on both offense and defense.
Evan Wolfson and his allies wouldn't be dragging this stuff up to the Supreme Court every ten minutes if he didn't think he had a secret vote advantage, as well as an Article IV argument (Full Faith and Credit Clause), which thanks to New England's moral Iscariots, he now has.
Come to think of it, though, with Souter leaving, his secret advantage might be leaving, too.
With those New England legislative votes in favor of queer hookups being called "marriage", the gay bar has everything they need for the showdown. It's all about timing, now, and the multiple appeals of appeals the gay attorneys have been aiming straight at SCOTUS ever since Mary Bonauto and Lambda Legal rolled the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
There is nothing, literally nothing, to which these amoral people will not stoop.
That's because a river of foundation money props up an army of liberal NGO's beavering away at the foundations of the Republic, straining daily to build Socialism in America and sweep away the old America.
There are resources here on FR that will link you to websites that "follow the money" and will show you the vast apparatus arrayed against America. Fair warning -- it's depressing reading.
This should have gone to the USSC.
Gays do have equal protection. They have the same right to marry as anyone else. I can’t marry someone of the same sex, or my dog, or my brother, and neither can they. Everyone is treated equally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.