Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: To Litigate Or Not To Litigate?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:13:34 +0000

Though I agree that the time isn’t right for a federal suit, I have to correct a portion of Ms. Ruby-Sachs’ argument. Based on Lawrence v. Texas, the Court would have to use a level of scrutiny higher than rational basis – most likley intermediate review. This level requires an “important government interest” which is accomplished through “substantially related” means.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 31 May 2009 06:31:44 +0000

Please. I’ll translate for everyone. “The ACLU and Lamda Legal are scared the suit will lead to a negative decision”. Translation: Who do these two think they are? They are not part of OUR CLUB, and there will be no successful activism that is not sanctioned BY US. As someone who has been screwed by his own people while fighting discrimination I am here to tell you. These people have no interest in anybody’s civil rights. It’s all about careers and advancement in the legal community. Yes, I am talking about the ACLU and LAMDA LEGAL. Two of the most worthless organizations on the planet. Don’t give another red cent to them! I read time and time again the same statement by people in answer to articles like these, that when they were down and out, nobody came to help them. Why is there no reporting on this? Why doesn’t anybody tell the truth. Oh, but I’m keeping notes. And when my case in done with, I will publish the whole sordid mess. It should be quite a read!

By: Bobo

Bobo — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:59:08 +0000

When Obama started his run for President many people couldn’t believe a black man could be elected President. It was hard for him to get broad support initially because of the fear he would lose.

Ted Olson and David Boise face a similar concern from the Gay Community that have been working slowly state by state to win Same Sex Marriage civil rights. If they lose the Gay Civil Rights movement would be set back a decade.

But their is a good possibility that they could win a 5/4 Supreme Court Decision it they get Justices Kennedy and Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:34:39 +0000

Emma, I think you are wrong on this. Olson is sincere. He advances the strongest argument most eloquently I have yet heard. Far better than the pathetic campaign ‘our’ groups came up with. Also the more straight allies are out front with us on this, the better. Besides, who can accuse Ted Olson of being a ‘left wing’ activist. The guy is as conservative as they come. Olson and Boies are two of the best legal minds in the country, with decades of SCOTUS experience — far more and much more varied experience than any of ‘our’ groups. I’d frankly rather have them as my legal team than the ACLU or Lambda (as wonderful as they are). Lastly, consider Olson would have been more than a little involved in the selection of Roberts. I have a feeling that they are of like mind on these issues.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:19:03 +0000

I wish the lawsuit success! The groups that oppose it are simply being envious.

By: shawn

shawn — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:49:24 +0000

At this point in time I strongly suggest that all Gay/Lesbian residents of Cali leave the great sham state and re-locate to one of the few gay friendly states out there. let’s see how long Arnie’s fascist kingdom of Cali will stand once a massive brain drain gets underway. Couple that with the inevitable BOYCOTT of Cali and we can bring that puke in the state house along with all of his ultra right wing supporters, right to his F*ckin’ knees!! Peace out.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:14:58 +0000

Most of us have waited for equal rights for far too long now. We should not have to wait another decade or more.

By: shawn

shawn — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:17:18 +0000

Hmmm…isn’t this interesting. Let’s see here, this ultra mysterious human rights group just pops into existence literally overnight and appears to be headed by an extreme right wing think tank who’s member was/is a lawyer employed by the Bush administration. Yup, this shurely sounds legit to me. So what happens when this case fails at the supreme court level(which it will)? I’ll tell you all what will happen, all the states that don’t allow direct petition drives to go on the ballot(MA, VT, NH, CT, IA, ect,ect,ect)will now be REQUIRED by the USSC to do so. In other words bye,bye Marriage Equality. I FULLY AND I MEAN FULLLLLLLY do NOT recommend us supporting this sham lawsuit!! The writing on the wall cannot be any more plain folks. Support this right wing farce and you’ll be signing the death warrant for what few states have Marriage Equality!! Peace out.

By: John

John — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:26:39 +0000

Jay, the suit is filed in the District Court in San Francisco because the plaintiffs live in CA (and I believe in the Bay Area) and because they are specifically challenging Prop 8. There’s nothing mysterious about it and if they were forum shopping, they misjudged. The case has been assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, a conservative Republican.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:04:23 +0000

A strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment alone should be enough to find in favor of marriage equality. With the additional precedents out of Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education, there should be absolutely no question as to which direction the Supreme Court *should* go, and unamimously, were it to take up the case.

Unfortunately, since Scalia can’t separate his religion from his decisions, and since Thomas simply mimics Scalia, we are assured of two votes against marriage equality, no matter what the 14th Amendment says.

The whole question is probably moot anyway, as I doubt the current court will take up the issue unless there is enough popular momentum, or some incident, that requires it to do so.