Proposition 8 challenged in federal court

Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/27/9 | Steve Wiegand

[SmithL]

A strange-bedfellows duo of top constitutional lawyers said today they are challenging the legal validity of Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot measure that prohibited same-sex marriages in California.

Speaking at a Los Angeles press conference, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies said they had filed a suit in federal court on behalf of two gay California couples, and would seek an injunction to stay the law while arguing it is a violation of the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general, represented former President George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election. Boies represented Bush's Democratic challenger, Al Gore.

The case "is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican," said Olson. "This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution."

The challenge in federal court comes a day after the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proposition 8 under the state constitution.

[Rummyfan]

Why oh why is Ted Olson doing this?

[xcamel]

“No” will never be “no” for these people.

[San Jacinto]

"This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution."

Yep. Right there in the 14th Amendment. "Queers get to marry each other." Most definitely what was intended at the time. During the Civil War, homosexual rights was one of the big issues.

Didn't know Ted Olson was a scumsucker---until now.

[joejm65]

‘Why oh why is Ted Olson doing this?’

Money. Publicity.

[exist]

If restricting marriage to 1 man and 1 woman is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause then what isn’t?

[blackie]

$$$...

[Psycho_Bunny]

$

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution”

Then why not polygamy? Why not a muslim with a 9 year old girl like they do in their own countries? Why not a man with a horse; “beastophiles” equal rights?

Society has the right to set its standards. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

[Beagle8U]

If they let queers marry they open the door to anything and everything.

[RobRoy]

>>The case “is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” said Olson. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.” <<

Pretty funny. Everyone has equal rights. Gays can marry just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, it cannot be a member of the same sex, a sibling, etc.

Likewise, we can’t do that either.
Completely fair.

[edcoil]

I think I just heard on KFI640 news break that this has been withdrawn as no favorable federal ruling would be given so they are not looking for a different case.

I could be wrong I’ll listen for the next one.

[jeffc]

The challenge in federal court comes a day after the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proposition 8 under the state constitution.

Just as I predicted. You can always find someone to challenge anything.

[edcoil]

OK, heard story, some gay groups are saying the ballot box, not the courts is the way to get this reversed. The court are only making the voters angry and these gay groups want the time to convince the voters of their position and have a new ballot.

Anything imposed for their position by the courts would not be positive.

[jeffc]

I just thought of something: How can we be sure the two homo couples being represented have “standing” on which to sue?

[skimask]

Ok here goes my “Tin Foil” hat theory. Ted Olsen is doing this because he knows that the Federal Courts will not strike down Prop 8 and thus throw a monkey wrench in to any future challenges that the sodomites might think they can get through a judicial fiat.

[TheDon]

Didn't know Ted Olson was a scumsucker---until now.

Agreed.

[Deb]

Olsen has clearly lost his mind.

[MrB]

That’s the point.

It’s not about “equal rights” as much as it is about destroying the concept of the traditional family.

[Deb]

I hope you're right and it actually sounds plausible. The Defense of Marriage Act would have been challenged and gone to the Supremes if it was any way unConstitutional. DOMA is essentially the Federal version of Prop 8.