Olson and Bois Team Up on Proposition 8 Challenge

225px-Theodore_Olson225px-David_Boies_at_Berkman_CenterTheodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under Bush and his lawyer in Bush v. Gore, and David Boies, who represented former vice president Al Gore in that case, have joined forces to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court after this week’s loss in the California state court system.

A successful challenge would circumvent the need for a state by state fight on the issue. The Supreme Court has long dodged the question, even in its historic Lawrence v. Texas decision.

They are challenging the prohibition of same-sex marriage as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Olson stated” “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals. The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

While Olson and Bois view this as an optimal time, I would disagree. Coming so soon after the loss in the polling place, the timing maximizes the appearance of attempting to achieve in court what was denied by the voters. On the other hand, if you agree that gays and lesbians are entitled to such protection, the vote of the public constitutes a modern version of tyranny of the majority.

Notably, by the time that it went to the Court, Sotomayor is likely to have been confirmed and voting as an Associate Justice.

For the full story, click here.

26 thoughts on “Olson and Bois Team Up on Proposition 8 Challenge

  1. Vern, your floodgates to immorality argument against gay marriage doesn’t cut it, although I am sorry that you must live in fear of all those roving bands of gay and lesbian thugs randomly assaulting law abiding heterosexuals. I am reminded of the Monty Python skit in which elderly women saunter down a city sidewalk, rudely pushing people aside and mercilessly pounding them with their purses. At any rate, affording civil rights to gays should not result in a surge of interest in unions with farm animals, except in certain rural enclaves (and you know who you are). I suggest you read the comments on the “California Supreme Court Votes 6-1” thread.

  2. Ravin,

    Where to begin…

    First: Marriage is not about procreation, you can be married without having kids and have kids without being married. Also, the physical act of sex isn’t necessary for having kids these days.

    Secondly: I’m not quite sure I understand your point about churches and counseling. A religious ceremony has nothing to do with being legally married. Nobody forces churches to marry heterosexual couples they don’t want to so why would legalized gay marriage force them to marry homosexual couples?

    Third: What’s wrong with polygamy (assuming everyone’s in the deal willingly)? Two or more consenting adults is a whole different ball game from a consenting adult and a child. What you’re saying is like claiming that allowing unmarried people to have sex will mean that the laws protecting children from sexual abuse will go away. It doesn’t make sense.

  3. What makes this really funny is that in November of last year, even here in CA, nobody knew WTF Prop 8 was or whether to vote yes or no. A lot of people said things like “oh yeah one of these gay things, I guess I’ll vote yes”.

  4. […] allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Federalizing the issue would circumvent the need for the gay marriage battle to be fought on a state-by-state basis. Olson and Boies are challenging that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the equal […]

  5. Vern,
    It is nice that you are able to keep it professional. First of all, if the government is going to sanction a marriage, the government cannot stop gays and lesbians from marrying if heterosexuals are allowed to marry. The church rules that you bring up have no bearing on this discussion because this is a discussion about state sanctioned marriages. The fact that two people of the same sex can’t have kids(without assistance), has no bearing on the constitutionality of banning same sex partners from marrying. You really need to stop reading your talking points from former Senator Santorum. The human/animal combo that you are afraid of is one of Santorum’s claims to fame. Your comment that I am a “stark raving lunatic” is especially interesting after reading our words.
    Finally, don’t bring my mother into this discussion.

  6. just one more thing…former congressman bob baur was the one who decided that it should be a state issue and not federal

    what his agenda was is an open question

Comments are closed.