Comments on: Corvino: Hands Up for Marriage Equality

By: roy reyle

roy reyle — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:48:22 +0000

i say go for it. its about time somebody stood up and said civil rights are for every american,marraige is nothimg more then a civil right.and gays are just as american as anyone else,i,d like to hear what they have to say about that.

By: Rocco

Rocco — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:21:07 +0000

Olson and Boies’s case is obviously extremely foolish at best and evilly duplicitous at worst. You are being gullible, John

If something appears too good to be true, it probably is

By: Jerry6

Jerry6 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:00:04 +0000

Don’t forget that today’s Bible is the resulted of centuries long review and filtering of texts written over a period of more than a 1,000 years by hundreds of authors, that the Catholic Church admits to have reviewed and carefully selected, edited,and compiled into what they now call “The Holy Bible” – The word of GOD.

Bolony! “The Holy Bible” is the greatest work of cruel, dictatorial thought control and persocusion ever produced. It’s sole purpose is to control the minds and bodies of humman beings in a manner that those humans will finance the support of a group of men that produce not one cent to the gross national product of any nation while fostering and encouraging we humans to oppose and even kill anyone that tries to live their lives without religious thought control and the financial support thereof.

By: george

george — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:19:28 +0000

I really hope i’m wrong, but i highly doubt that Roberts or Kennedy will decide to invalidate Prop. 8. I also highly doubt that Olson has any credible basis for believing that Roberts will rule for the plaintiffs. This case will be a bad tactical move if it turns out that a Supreme Court precedent is established upholding the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

By: John

John — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:16:12 +0000

Ive already said elsewhere that Im thrilled to see some independent litigation instead of the “gay orthodoxy” trying to set the pace for everyone.

First, applause for the article.

Second, so what if they fail. Worse case scenario: The SCOTUS justices go insane and invalidate every same-sex marriage in the US. (Im exaggerating). So what.

Does anyone really think that would stop progress? Does anyone really think the tide will turn? Are theyre really “gays” out there that use court decisions to measure how much discrimination they will suffer, how much self-respect that theyre willing to see sold for the sake of a placated majority?

Every trial represents a fuse. Its just a question of whats at the end when it burns out.

I for one am tired of people among us trying to win civil rights by bringing a chess board to a boxing match.

By: drewski

drewski — Sun, 31 May 2009 03:55:09 +0000

@Jay–Even if California DP registry allowed all the same state rights and responsibilities, that M-word makes a difference, and the proof is experience in both Connecticut and New Jersey. Connecticut’s Supreme already ruled on it, and the legislature has already expanded the state’s marriage laws to cover same-sex couples. New Jersey has not done so, and there’s a growing list of people in Jersey who find that their insurer does not have to add a domestic partner to their insurance, despite what the state says. The cop from the Jersey Shore who died of cancer, and had to fight to the end to make sure her wife got the same benefits any opposite-sex spouse would have? That’s a public employee–if government can’t follow its own rules, and won’t enforce them in the private sector, then domestic partnership is legally worth only the ink and paper used to print it. It’s glorified Charmin.

If domestic partnership is the same as marriage, except the name marriage, then you’re creating a parallel institution where the original one works fine. That means that you’ve created a suspect class–why is one segment of the population not allowed to take on those rights and responsibilities, something that prison inmates can do even if they’ve lost their voting rights? That can also be considered a violation of contract law, since enforcement of DP provisions will be uneven, but the standards for marriage will be the same because they follow the law.

I say get on with it. Two sharp legal minds on the same mission. Godspeed.

By: advntr99

advntr99 — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:14:52 +0000

Mr. Covino, I liked your article this week. You know, on this past Memorial day we commemorated the sacrifices that heroes have made for our great nation in the past. Equality and justice for all. 7 decades ago WW2 was fought with 1 side the force of good, and the other the forces of evil. For a while it looked like the evil side would win it all. It looked pretty bad for the allies. Fast forward to 21st Century USA, the prop8 fight took what was once a purely CA affair, and turned it to a national civil rights cause. Hopefully like the allies of that long ago great war, we will persevere too. Afterall, we at the heart of it – are right.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 30 May 2009 11:15:02 +0000

I think if anyone wants to challenge a law on behalf of a gay client, the timing is always right. There is no legal Wizard of Oz who should have a say about the timing. I don’t think there is ever a winning strategy, because these decisions are unpredictable, even in places that are supposed to be conservative. Look at the Iowa Supreme Court and New York Supreme Court! New York judges said that marriage is for having babies! So no, they should GO FOR IT.

By: brandy

brandy — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:26:33 +0000

“But California still allows gays and lesbians to enjoy all the statewide legal incidents of marriage, just without the name “marriage.” I’m not suggesting that the name is unimportant. I am saying that it seems easier to make an equal protection case where the legal incidents, and not just the name, are obviously unequal.”
Bald faced lie. Apparently Corvino did not bother reading the suit that Olson filed in the 9th circuit. Olson clearl demonstrates the newly formed unequal classifications of domestic partners on pages 6 & 7 of the complaint.

By: Jennifer Diane Reitz

Jennifer Diane Reitz — Sat, 30 May 2009 06:02:00 +0000

This is obviously a deliberate plan to create just such a binding negative precedent. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that appearing to fight for justice can be used to guarantee a desired unjust outcome.

This way gay marriage can be permanently eliminated all under the appearance of helping. Who would riot or fight back then? ‘They did their best, after all? right?

“It was just the will of the people”, will be the word, and because it will seem that way to most people, THEY WIN. Utterly. Finally. Completely.

Now sit down and shut up, faggot.

Flawless victory. Finishing move: ironic duplicity. You have been had.