Comments on: Prop 8 forum: Olson & Boies speak

By: truth be told

truth be told — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:23:42 +0000

@Roberto Cucina,

“I can’t imagine Scalia, arguably the most homophobic of all, voting to overturn Proposition 8. His religion will cloud the decision, along with the other four.”

While I agree that religion can (read: almost always) cloud[s] decisions (unfortunately), remember that Scalia himself said the Lawrence v. Texas privacy ruling could well ‘lead’ to same-sex marriage recognition:

“June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court released Lawrence v. Texas, which held that states could not outlaw sodomy. Justice Scalia in his dissent wrote, almost prophetically, that Lawrence could lead to gay marriage.”

By: Brian St Germain

Brian St Germain — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:59:43 +0000

I disagree with all the negative comments about this case and the attorneys. They are doing something very important and it just may work. Are you happy with the state by state strategy? Hate to fill you in but we have nothing to lose. You waiting for Obama to pack the court with pro-equality justices? Still living in the hope and change delusion? We have to be on offense as we have nothing to defend, other than waiting.

By: Alexander Fisher-levesque

Alexander Fisher-levesque — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:47:29 +0000

I’m rooting for the massachusetts case to make it to the supreme court first. The bay state is the best state because our state had the balls to be first with marriage equality!!!

By: Gerry Fisher

Gerry Fisher — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:09:02 +0000

> If the Supreme Court rules against us, they said, the Justices are likely to decide that whether gay marriage is permitted should be left up to the states.

This response is annoying.

Of *course* it can still be decided by the states, at the snails pace we’re using right now, the one that’s got the Canadians and Europeans laughing at us (for good reason).

What they failed to mention is that it puts a 15-to-20 gap between the Supreme Court loss and any attempts at getting them too hear the case again.

So, theoretically, assuming an Obama re-election (huge assumption, I know), we could have waited 5 years or so, taken advantage of perhaps another supreme court nomination and improved polling and social acceptance, greatly improving our chances of victory. Or, we could rush it through now, and then wait a decade or two to try it again–which is *exACTly* what happened with the sodomy decisions (though I would never accuse the Bowers v. Hardwick people of “rushing it”…I thought their case was super solid).

By: robertocucina

robertocucina — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:54:46 +0000

Even if the Supreme has the final say and the evidence for the opponents of Prop. 8 is overwhelming from a constitutional point of view in regard to the 14th amendment, I fail to see 5 extremely conservative catholic judges overruling in favor of our right to marry. Look what they just did with corporations’rights to contribute as much as they want to a political campaign. That hadn’t changed in a hundred years. I can’t imagine Scalia, arguably the most homophobic of all, voting to overturn Proposition 8. His religion will cloud the decision, along with the other four.

By: Christopher Davis

Christopher Davis — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:22:38 +0000

The Supream Court still have the DOMA to reject or defend. If they side on the LGBT community then they would have to look over the DOMA. they couldnt agree with one area with out the other and that in itself could be complicated. I hope they have considered how that Act will be handeled during the case. It will be a point of view that will have to be dealt with.

By: truth be told

truth be told — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:56:29 +0000

“That [the FF&C Clause] is NOT the ground that Prop 8 is being challenged on.”

I know. And I’m saying it SHOULD be. That and the Equal Protections Clause.

“The Loving decision states that banning interracial marage per se was unconstitional.”

So why aren’t lawyers making the case that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional?

This is not about the right to marry – there is no such ‘right’, not even for betterosexuals. It is about the FREEDOM to marry. America isn’t The Land of the Rights, it’s The Land of the FREE’ (TM). Since when can anyone’s freedoms be curtailed by prejudices?

By: Nino

Nino — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:11:03 +0000

I have very high respect for both of these litigators. However, I do think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that there’s no downside to the suit. The downside is the risk of a failed opportunity and an adverse precedent.

It’s true that a loss in this case will result in simply letting individual states’ prerogatives stand. But that’s not quite the same as falling back on the status quo, since there’ll be a new precedent on the books holding that states have the power to discriminate in this area.

The Court does reverse itself, and dare I say *will* reverse itself eventually if this case goes the wrong way. But if it comes to that, we’ll all be waiting a long time…

By: Robert Chandler

Robert Chandler — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:31:28 +0000

It is time that we start screaming for our Civil Rights! Anyone or organization that denies us of them should be boycotted and called a bigot. Religion should be put in it’s place. We need to sue for separation of church and state. No church or individual in our government should quote a religious book or belief. This violates my right of freedom of religion! As a Tax paying US citizen I have the right to live my life free of religious restriction! If we can’t accomplish this we need to declare Homosexuality as a Religion! Then we would be bulletproof!

By: jpmcull

jpmcull — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:29:06 +0000

I don’t see the Full Faith and Credit clause helping us much. I don’t think it will get states to extend to us the benefits marriage normally brings. They will continue to hide behind the DOMA. I only think the FF&C clause will get states to recognize the marriage contract in court between the couple for purposes such as divorce.