Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Prop 8//

citizenship

Bush vs. Gore attorneys join forces against Prop 8.

Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson were on the opposite sides of a case that determined a presidency. Now they’ve joined forces to fight against traditional marriage in federal court and are representing two same-sex couples.

Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Florida vote-recount case, has teamed up with Olson, who represented the ultimately victorious George W. Bush.

In addition to his efforts for Gore, Boies is best known for representing the U.S. government in the late 1990s in its anti-trust case against Microsoft.Olson was the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from June 2001 to July 2004.

They’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage.

In addition to asking that Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional, the lawyers are also seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the ban.

“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said in announcing thesuit.

The lawyers argue, among other things, that Proposition 8 denies the couple the right to marry and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

Chairm, one of The Opine Editorials’ brilliant bloggers, summed up David and Ted’s arguments from the news conference in which they announced their partnership in the fight for SSM in federal court.

These two lawyers who hope to take their case to the US Supreme Court
appeared on Hardball the other day. They want to use the CA marriage
amendment as the excuse to impose SSM across the country.

Below is a rough transcript. Note that their arguments have not
evolved one iota
since the pro-SSM side went to court in Hawaii back
in 1993. Here are some quick points they voiced.

1. It is said that the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates
“purely” on sexual orientation. A new term is coined: “same-sex
individuals”.

2. It is said that marriage is the right of an individual to marry the
person of choice.

3. Marrige is called a fundamental human right — not merely a
constitutional right — and that race and sexual orientation are
closely analogous.

4. The claim is that the marriage amendment is just about the word;
but the complaint they make goes much farther than that.

5. The complaint refers to an individual’s equality, but here the
lawyers talk of equating different types of relationships.

6. A new attempt at analogy is made: citizens who pass the citizenship
test being denied the use of the word citizen.

7. The complaint is  the man-woman basis of marriage exists because
“same-sex indivduals” are unpopular and because the majority doesn’t
like what “same-sex indivduals” do in their relationships. They did
not once refer to sexual behavior.

8. They point to the example of Brown v. Board of Education — (an
activist decision that was poorly reasoned even if it came to a just
conclusion) and linked it to the Civil Rights Act which they said
would never have happened if not for the Supreme Court’s leadership.

Watch the 5 minute video and try not to yell at your monitor. They
can’t hear you. They can’t hear common sense either.

Cheerio,
Chairm

You can see these attorneys on MSNBC’s Hardball at the link {here}

Source: news.muckety.com

Advertisements