“Justice Thomas, in a separate short dissenting opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was “uncommonly silly” (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart’s dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find “no general right of privacy” or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law.”

He’s a *strict* constitutionalist (supposedly), so his ruling really wasn’t so bad. At least he basically said, more or less, that the law should be struck down (but on a State level).

“Justice Thomas, in a separate short dissenting opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was “uncommonly silly” (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart’s dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find “no general right of privacy” or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law.”

He’s a *strict* constitutionalist (supposedly), so that wasn’t so bad. At least he basically said, more or less, that the law should be struck down (but on a State level).

Per Wiki:

Gay rights and homosexuality
Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. He wrote the Court’s opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court’s opinion Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court’s previous contrary ruling in 1986′s Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referred to foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights, in justifying its result. Kennedy voted, with 4 other Justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America’s organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.

If not now, then when? Assuming it even gets to SCOTUS (which could be several years), there is no guarantee they’ll even except the case. Frankly, I saw these guys on CNN when they officially announced their decision to take on this case and I applaud their honesty, tenacity and frankness. Their argument is strictly from a constitutional basis of denying the same rights to a minority that the majority currently receive. There certainly is no shortage of case law for them to draw from.

While I applaud all the hard work of Lambda Legal and HRC, at the end of the day their decision to prolong our efforts to be equal in all facets of life is not only a poor decision, but has already set us back by twenty years or longer. It almost appears to be a power trip to draw this out as long as possible, thus keeping the money flowing and the gay community clinging to them as the last great hope for change.

As for Boies and Olson arguing to keep them from joining the case, good for them. There is nothing new they could possibly bring to the table and it would only interfere with the strategy they already have in place to win this case. To suggest that they would intentionally fumble the ball because they are straight white males is not only preposterous, but racist. The fact of the matter is, these guys are prominent attorneys with a long track record. At their age, I’m certain they would enjoy nothing more than to have their names go down in history as the duo who managed to overturn the final discriminatory practices of this country; not to mention having this as a prominent case that will be cited for decades to come in the universities of law across this country. Losing is NOT an option for them.

(And having worked for the City & County of San Francisco for many years I can honestly say: Don’t let them touch a thing!! Dear, Lord, noooo!!!)

Lets just do exactly what we’ve done since the real GLBT leaders died – NOTHING…just keep giving our money to Lamda, HRC, NLRC etc. and for what – they ALL PISSED on the lawsuit and now want to join? I wouldn’t let them join either for fear they’d just try to sabotage it.

I am glad the “Straight white guys” (as called by one bigot) care more about my equality than our apparent leaders….you say they don’t care and they hope it sets us back??? Seriously? They do care as a mater of Constitutional protection. It may shock the hetero bigots on here that there are actually some really good straight people, some are even white, who support our equality because they believe in it and in our constitution. I amazes me that the community that espouses diversity is so f*cking bigoted!!!!!

I think this is exactly what they hope to accomplish. I do not trust these two lawyers, here they come out of the blue…

Also as a side…the reason DADT will not be removed is simple; if openly gay men and women are allowed to server/die for their country, then what’s to stop the gay community from arguing that if we can die for our freedoms then why can’t we marry who we want?, hmmmmm