Strange Bedfellows: Famous Political Foes Team Up to Fight Prop 8
By Susie Madrak Thursday May 28, 2009 11:45amEither this will turn out to be a bold, brilliant move - or a disaster that will set the cause back for a long time. Here's hoping they pull it off:
Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.
Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.
“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”
The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California.
“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.
“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.
Not everyone in the gay rights movement, however, was thrilled by the sudden intervention of the two limelight-grabbing but otherwise untested players in the bruising battle over Proposition 8. Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage.
“It’s not something that didn’t occur to us,” Matt Coles, the director of the LGBT project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said of filing a federal lawsuit. “Federal court? Wow. Never thought of that.”
But Mr. Olson said that their lawsuit — which also seeks an injunction blocking the marriage ban until the matter can be resolved — fell squarely in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
“Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Mr. Bush. “The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”
Login or Register to post comments.
these two run off to Vermont and get married?
If they want polygamy?
Virtually every state mandates marriage is between two people - no exceptions. Care to play again?
maybe if we ignore the idiot, he may go away?
In his attempt to be "witty" the fact that the mormons were among the most vocal of the groups for prop 8, must have flown over his feeble pea brain,
I couldn't help myself because this is exactly the kind of (invalid) argument that Prop 8 proponents are making.
Life is so much easier when you don't do that thinking stuff.
slope toward marital recognition of box turtle bliss.
Honestly, I don't see what is legally wrong with polygamy. As long as it's not forced like it is in some sects, and it's among consenting adults, I have no problem with it.
The legal problem with polygamy is that it's illegal in all 50 states. I think you're suggesting something similar to what perris is - that government should not be in the marriage business at all. If a couple (or triad) wants to have a contractual obligation, then they should get a lawyer. All of this is perfectly logical until children are introduced - then things tend to get messy when a "marriage" goes awry.
Try pumpernickel.
Tried pumpernickel.
underage, and there's no child abuse happening in the household, and there's no welfare fraud happening, I don't think it should be illegal.
Personally, I think it's an emotionally destructive practice, but many monogamous heterosexual are bad also, so yeah!
Also...marriage is THE #1 reason for divorce!
why do you call Latter Day Saints a sect? This is not about same sects marriage anyway.
n/t
This is a question of equal rights: if it's legal for a straight couple to marry- and it is- it should be legal for a gay couple to marry.
Polygamy is completely separate issue. It is not legal for anyone. There's not a question of equal rights involved. Polygamy would be a new right.
I don't have any problem with it. Marriage is created by man, not god. It's a legal contract between parties. One day I might want 2 or 3 (more) husbands. What's the problem, as long as we 'behave'?
People that want it all sacred can go to a church and ask the sky god to bless them. Means nothing to me, but if that helps them to sleep better...
Mr. Olson is heterosexual: as I recall, he lost his wife in the hijacked airplane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01. I think that with that in his background, joking about him and Mr. Boies is disrespectful. The fact that these two attorneys of vastly different political philosophies are joining forces on this issue is absolutely stunning. Kudos to both.
I wonder if losing his wife and how he lost her was a factor in his decision to partipate in this suit.
that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11...which make the question of what happened to that airliner and everyone on it even more interesting.
I bet Cheney knows.
The last time these guys hooked up in court we got 8 years of GW Bush.
What does that have to do with it? They were fighting on opposite sides then.
Don't trust this one one bit. I can't believe an ultra neo-con like Olson would want to help us gays. He want's to make sure we get set back for years and years.
These two are up to something.
but then again..they're lawyers.
It's all about the benjamins AND fame.
it's about the law. Believe it or not, some lawyers really do take cases just to stop that kind of horseshit from happening. Even if it's on the other side of a political fence. A bad law can swing both ways; history has proven that.
..is of course to think about it the way you do. But I believe Olson is probably very alive to the fact that the whole 9/11 "investigation" was a cover-up. And he probably knows who's at the bottom of it, being personally invested in the event as he was. And--who knows?--maybe Olson has gay relatives. (Doesn't everyone?) A lot of people found true religion when they learned that relatives they loved were gay. Of course a lot of people do the opposite.
I for one am willing to give Olson the benefit of the doubt. The whole thing is to unlikely to be untrue.
To be sincere, the constitution of Jefferson and Madison did indeed create second class citizens, since in its spirit it distinguished between white male land owners.... and the rest.
Unfortunately for the founding fathers, it was not their "genius" but their neglect that allowed the constitution to become a much stronger document with the years. The non-committal language used was a "bug" that later became a "feature" thank goodness...
We tend to put some of the founding fathers in a pedestal, trying to map into them current insights that they were not only not even remotely acquainted with... but some of the original founding fathers would get a heart attack if they see some of the great things that we have managed, as a society, to enable via the amendment of the constitution.
When I read this my first reaction was that they wanted to get this issue to the Supreme Court quickly to take advantage of the right wing justices. I guessed they wanted to get the issue settled in favor of the ban on gay marriage while they still could. It would make it that much harder to overturn once there was established case law for the Fascists to fall back on. I still am not sure I was wrong.
He wants to get it in front of the SCOTUS now because he knows the court is bound to shift to the left over the next eight years. This is his last, best shot for a conservative activist hearing.
Has this guy had some kind of bug up his ass about gay people and gay marriage? Why should we assume he wants to make it illegal? Unless you can come up with some evidence that this is a cause of his, it seems unlikely to me. Why go through the aggravation of working with someone you're not in line with, for lower fees, unless it's something you actually want to accomplish?
I base my statement on having watched every last worst expectation of these neocons come true, time and again, over and over and over, ever since Bush v. Gore.
I often used to sound quite a bit like your post, as a matter of fact. But every time I said something to myself along those lines, I was ultimately proven wrong. Therefore, I no longer expect anything but the worst humanity has to offer from these criminals. They are bad people.
As for working for someone you're not in line with for lower fees, well, let's ask the Liberty University grad Bush Justice Department hires that have burrowed into the Obama administration about that.
That's a bit irrelevant, though, as there is no way Olson is working "partial pro bono" to begin with. The difference is being made up to him off the books, via an unknown entity. He is not acting independently; they are a gang and they look out for one another. Now, do I have proof of that? Of course I don't. How could I? But do I know it to be true just as I know, without proof, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
If you're not quite that cynical yet, well, I applaud you. You have a greater faith in humanity than I, and that's admirable. Those days are over for me, however.
Myself; I lost the last shred of giving them the benefit of the doubt about anything right around Katrina.
Cheers.
the real problem with a ban on gay marriage is never mentioned, nor is the solution which is simply simple;
marriage should never be in control of the government, in fact government wasn't involved in a marriage license until some states wanted to restrict the rights of mixed race to marry
George Washington did not have a marriage license
the government could possibly br allowed to license co-existence
marriage should be given completely and entirely by the person's religious affiliation, in that fashion nobody could deny what they acquire
if the person has no religous affiliation they could simply pronounce their marriage by virtue of their own declaration
get government out of the business of marriage and bing, problem solved
of the government's business. The contractual side, however, is.
Gays don't want to access the religious side of things, they want the equal protection of the law that contractual unions provide. Not a hard concept to grasp really...
bullies his female partner into making sandwiches when everyone know he does all the cooking to say. Especially when she only wanted to know if he wanted a snak.
that he ALWAYS has a cold beer with his sandwich.
just for her flat head?
The lack of teeth sealed the deal.
that are very religious. I am not one of them, but the ones that are go to very accepting churches that would do a ceremony anyways regardless of ban or not.
So the issue is just the legality really.
He has to zealously represent his clients' interest though. It takes a long time to get to the SCOTUS, so he may lose the race. Or maybe his favorite child is gay?
Regardless of why, this doesn't belong in federal court until CA rules on the issue of equal protection. It is not a federal issue. Gay is not a protected class federally and we can only think that this wolf in sheeps clothing knows he will get a ruling that says that.
Sure, they may be doing this for the fame. They may well want to produce their own Brown v. Board of Education. Yes, they may just be shameless fame whores.
BUT.
This would mean that they would be giving their all to the case and would be trying very hard to win it. They would not just phone it in, they would be putting forth their best, no matter what their motive. I think it's a good thing. Even if they're just in it for fame, or to "make their mark" on the law, they're still on the side of right.
I think the concern is that they would purposely throw the case. "Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage."
--that these two worked together for desired outcome on b v. g in 2000. (too absurd!)
--that they'll get a conservative court to rule against gay marriage
--that they'll get scotus to overturn prop 8 and then conservatives and wackaloon religionists work on an amendment to ban gay marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqdgSe4YTgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_DOA2AL7Q
*
"The last time these guys hooked up in court we got 8 years of GW Bush." Second. There's every reason to suspicious of Olson's intent and Bois's competence.
I don't think you can deem Boies incompetent, or even less than fully competent, based on a decision which, in the opinion issued by the majority of the SCOTUS, provided the caveat that the decision should not be viewed as precedent setting. Those *ahem* Justices weren't even listening to Boies' argument, imo.
I guess you've got a right to be suspicious of Olson, but where is it written that everyone who's a member of a political party must march in lockstep? Pat Buchanan is nearly always wrong, but he's been in the right with his stand against the invasion of Iraq.
Once you have gay marriage across America, people will realize absolutely nothing has changed, except all people have their Constitutional rights and some are much happier for it (or in divorce court).
gotten it through their heads yet that 5 states have gay marriage now and the sky hasn't caved in yet...
Remember when you could trust attorneys to try to do their jobs or at least not to throw a case? Would we be discussing this as a possibility prior to the Bush Administrations' Judicial scandals? Maybe I was naive before to think that attorneys value their professional ethics (attorneys have those right?) over politics, and if they didn't they would no longer be attorneys
Are going to have to keep a VERY close eye on them, and need to be ready to jump on any shady business. If they throw the case the clients need to be ready at the very least with a malpractice suit.
The book...To Serve Man...It's a cookbook!!
I don't want to be cynical, but I keep wondering if these attorneys are taking this case to the supreme court because they know that, with the present make-up of the court, they would vote to ban gay marriage in California and that would put the issue to rest once and for all, essentially a permanently ban on gay marriage in Calif. Especially this Olson guy, he has always been so hard right it was borderline cruel to minorities and essentially non-Republicans. I can't believe extremist justices like Scalia and Thomas would even entertain giving the right to gay people to marry, and Alito and Roberts aren't far behind. Anyway, that's what I'm thinking, not to mention that I think most (if not all) lawyers are weasels and always looking to suck out an extra bit of publicity and an extra dime for themselves, and in the case of these two guys, their place in legal/supreme court history. I think it's really about them and not the people they purport to represent at all. I don't trust this move and I even think it might be wiser to wait until the make-up of the Supreme Court is a little less fanatically right wing.
...seems to have learned something about conservatives since he lost his wife on 9/11. What could it all mean...?
I just new that someone would try to take this into federal court. If they win, expect some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Christaliban.
Lol...people seem to think that an airplane hitting a building would leave a neat airplane-shaped hole. I actually know someone who was in the pentagon when it was hit and yes, it was, in fact hit by an airplane.
does that have to do with this thread?
Login or Register to post comments.