The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

Post #1

Post by micatala »

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html


Bill Moyers interviewed Theodore Olson and David Boies, the chief lawyers handling the suit against California's Proposition 8, this past Friday on PBS. Prop 8 was the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in CA that narrowly passed in the fall of 2008.

Olson is a prominent conservative, famous for handling the Republican case in Bush V. Gore.

Boies is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and was on the opposite side of the Bush v. Gore case.

They are teaming up to represent one male and one female same-sex couples, a case that is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

I would certainly recommend the full interview if you have time.


One main point of their legal strategy is to hammer home that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental individual right, and that extending this right to gays is not creating a new right, but simply treating gays equally with respect to an already firmly established right.
Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, 'Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.' Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there's a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked as a test of judicial activism. That's not liberal, that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's simply an American Constitutional civil right.

They noted that the Supreme Court has said that even prison inmates cannot be prevented from being married.


In the interview, they went on to pretty well demolish any legal justification for Proposition 8. Of course, they still have to win their case, and eventually in front of the SCOTUS.


Questions for debate:

1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

2) How good is their case?

3) Are the likely to win?




The suit itself is entitled Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, even though neither the governor nor his attorney general are going to defend the proposition. The AG even noted he felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

See http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/ou ... rzenegger/
for more background.


See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_talbot
for a New Yorker article on the suit.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #2

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From the OP:
Opie wrote: One main point of their legal strategy is to hammer home that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental individual right, and that extending this right to gays is not creating a new right, but simply treating gays equally with respect to an already firmly established right.
Agreed. When we restrict the rights of others we risk losing our own.
Opie wrote: Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right.
I've never bought the "judicial activism" argument here. When folks are deprived of their rights, the courts, and all of us, have an obligation to speak up.
Opie wrote: They noted that the Supreme Court has said that even prison inmates cannot be prevented from being married.
That's a good point. We would codify, support and celebrate a murderer getting married, but not a law abiding citizen?

Of course then I'm sure this'll just cause a change so that prisoners can't marry. Make one good argument and your liable to get that argument taken away, rather than the more heinous error corrected.
Opie wrote: 1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?
FIGHT INJUSTICE REGARDLESS OF THE ODDS! NEVER LET THE OPPRESSOR HAVE A MOMENT OF REST! CHASE 'EM INTO THE DARK CORNERS LIKE THE COCKROACHES THEY ARE! THEN SHINE THE LIGHT OF FREEDOM ON 'EM AND STOMP 'EM WITH THE BOOT OF JUSTICE FOR ALL!

DANG 'EM! DANG 'EM EACH AND EVERY ONE! DANG THEIR PRIVILEGE, THEIR COMFORT, THEIR SECURITY!

LET 'EM COWER IN THEIR HATRED! LET 'EM FEEL A THOUSAND TIMES THE OPPRESSION THEY SEEK TO IMPOSE!
Opie wrote: 2) How good is their case?
As good as the case for heterosexual marriage. No one is asking for "extra rights".
Opie wrote: 3) Are the likely to win?
In the current climate, I'm doubtful. There are some powerful, well funded efforts to deny folks their rights, and unfortunately they seem to have the upper hand right now.

Vanguard
Guru
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:30 pm
Location: Just moved back to So. Cal.

Re: The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

Post #3

Post by Vanguard »

1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

Absolutely, the suit should go forward regardless of the risk of losing.

2) How good is their case?

With only a very basic understanding of the argument it seems Olsen and Co. have the upper hand. Anybody care to articulate the dissenting opinion however? I mean, the CA Supremes did render a decision in favor of Prop 8. Are we reducing the rationale for such a decision to mere politicking and/or captiulating to "powerful, well-funded efforts"? Really now?

3) Are they likely to win?

The answer to this question is relative to how powerful the opposing argument is.

User avatar
Cephus
Prodigy
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Redlands, CA
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #4

Post by Cephus »

I'd like to see it win and if the Supreme Court Justices did what they were actually appointed to do, rule strictly on the Constitutional merit of a case, then it would win hands down. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has this nasty habit of putting personal biases into their decisions and therefore, I'm rather skeptical. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that would limit a homosexual couple's legal ability to marry, in fact the Constitution guarantees equality, something that gays are not receiving. Therefore, by any reasonable Constitutional interpretation, gay marriage ought to be legal nationwide.

Of course, reasonableness tends to break down quite often where strong emotions and religion come into play.
Want to hear more? Check out my blog!
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #5

Post by micatala »

Cephus wrote:I'd like to see it win and if the Supreme Court Justices did what they were actually appointed to do, rule strictly on the Constitutional merit of a case, then it would win hands down. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has this nasty habit of putting personal biases into their decisions and therefore, I'm rather skeptical. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that would limit a homosexual couple's legal ability to marry, in fact the Constitution guarantees equality, something that gays are not receiving. Therefore, by any reasonable Constitutional interpretation, gay marriage ought to be legal nationwide.
I agree. If SCOTUS does decide against this, I wonder what argument they would make to disallow state recognition of a contract between consenting adults. When has SCOTUS not allowed consenting adults to enter into a contract where the actions of the parties under the contract are entirely legal?

Cephus wrote: Of course, reasonableness tends to break down quite often where strong emotions and religion come into play.
Again, true. Witness recent demagogery regarding abortion and the health care reform bill.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

cnorman18

The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

Post #6

Post by cnorman18 »

I agree. Given the precedent of establishing marriage as a right, gays have an absolute right to marry under the Equal Protection clause. It's not only morally right, it's legally right. I don't see how the Court could rule in any other way, but they've surprised us before. I didn't get how FOUR of the Justices could have constituted the minority in the DC handgun case. That decision should have been unanimous.

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Re: The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

Post #7

Post by Lux »

micatala wrote:
1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

2) How good is their case?

3) Are the likely to win?
1) Absolutely correct. The risk of losing should never ever stop people, specially if a constitutional right is being violated. These people want to marry right now, not in 1, 5 or 10 years, not when (or if) the public opinion changes in their favor. They want to marry right now and they have every right to do so.

2) Their case is only fair. How can a legal contract regarding a legal activity between two consenting adults be contested without it being anti-constitutional?

3) I have high hopes for this case. The public opinion was not in favor of interracial couples either, and SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of it in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9911
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1573 times

Post #8

Post by Clownboat »

Only to be the devil's advocate here...

Doesn't a gay man already have the exact same right as a straight man, in that he can marry a women just like a straight man can. Children brought up in a household like this should have a typical mommy daddy feel to their upbringing, many and possibly most people would consider this a normal upbringing environment.

To give a gay man rights to marry someone of the same sex, would be giving them a right that straight men do not have, if we take this literally. This could also cause more children to be brought up in daddy daddy/mommy mommy households. Many would consider this non typical.

I do not have enough info to personally say there is anything wrong with a daddy daddy or mommy mommy home. It could in fact be a healthier environment.

Is it rational to consider the fear some would have about passing a law that may increase the amount of children raised in a non typical household?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Cephus
Prodigy
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Redlands, CA
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #9

Post by Cephus »

Clownboat wrote:Doesn't a gay man already have the exact same right as a straight man, in that he can marry a women just like a straight man can. Children brought up in a household like this should have a typical mommy daddy feel to their upbringing, many and possibly most people would consider this a normal upbringing environment.
Take that back not too long ago. You had to marry within your religion, you had to marry within your race, you had no choices. Should we go back to those standards too? Gender discrimination has no more place in marriage than religious or racial discrimination does.
Want to hear more? Check out my blog!
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #10

Post by Goat »

Clownboat wrote:Only to be the devil's advocate here...

Doesn't a gay man already have the exact same right as a straight man, in that he can marry a women just like a straight man can. Children brought up in a household like this should have a typical mommy daddy feel to their upbringing, many and possibly most people would consider this a normal upbringing environment.

To give a gay man rights to marry someone of the same sex, would be giving them a right that straight men do not have, if we take this literally. This could also cause more children to be brought up in daddy daddy/mommy mommy households. Many would consider this non typical.

I do not have enough info to personally say there is anything wrong with a daddy daddy or mommy mommy home. It could in fact be a healthier environment.

Is it rational to consider the fear some would have about passing a law that may increase the amount of children raised in a non typical household?
Uh... no.

A person who is homosexual can not marry a person they can be emotionally and sexually bonded to.

And, if same sex marriage is made legal, it would not give gays a privilege that is not given to people who are straight, because a straight man could marry another straight man if they so desire.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply