UPDATE:California Court Upholds Prop 8:Counter Lawsuit Filed
Lawsuit seeks federal ruling on gay marriage
By Linda Deutsch
Associated Press
Posted: 05/26/2009 04:23:34 PM PDT
Updated: 05/26/2009 04:28:16 PM PDT
LOS ANGELES — Two of the nation's top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California's gay marriage controversy.
Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said today that he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against California's Proposition 8 until the case is resolved.
The announcement will be broadcast live online at www.equalrightsfoundation.org.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12453649
http://laist.com/2009/05/26/bush_vs_gore_attorneys_team_up_t...
This should have been a non-issue, but the courts have at least upheld the will of the people.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6831830
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage
Not surprising.
I stated below that an appeal into the federal system had a low likelihood of success.
This is a new suit, which is entirely different.
Considering that the 14th Amendment applies Equal Protection and Due Process to the States, and the original marriage ruling cites those very things, this has a decent shot at success.
It also, depending on the suit wording, could cause DOMA to get tossed as well, which would be a welcome and overdue thing.
I expect the ignorant haters to start in again. They forget two important points, both elaborated below:
1) The will of the majority cannot override the rights of the minority.
2) There is a fundamental difference between the sex act and the marriage act, and care should be taken to not project one onto the other.
the n.w.o.media have made it
the n.w.o.media have made it seem like the majority of americans accept the hetero-haters deathstyles. The push to legalize moral perversion is not important to the average american. They are being attacked and made to feel like they are intolerant bigots instead of sane rational people.
"We must re-take the Republican Party"-Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ
Tannim, thx for the legal
Tannim, thx for the legal insights.
The reason so many put so much effort into preventing gay marriage has less to do with trying to legislate morality, than with the fear that official licensing will prove a precursor for use of the legal system to force behavior down the throat of those more traditionally minded.
While I'm sure there's the occasional bigot out there as well, the big church organizations that donated the decisive time and money to pass prop 8 did not do so to 'take gays' rights away', but rather out of fear of having their own behavior and traditions suddenly decreed discriminatory; hence exposing them to lawsuits.
While I'm sure you're better able to judge whether those fears are, in fact, legally well founded than I am, they are the reasons given by the vast majority of the pro prop 8 crowd, not bigotry or hatred, as many in the anti crowd seems to assume.
And considering the way governments and courts at various levels have kept themselves busy forcing behavior down the throat of private citizens and organizations over the last half century or more under guise of protecting someone's 'rights', far be it from me, who honestly haven't bothered studying prop 8 implications either way, to decree they're wrong off hand.
Well,
The churches should instead by campaigning to get government out of marriage altogether. They should be complaining about competition in that business rather than trying to usurp political power in the classic case of corruption.
IOW, they should embrace the separation of church and state, not fight it!
Stuki -
You are correct. It is not a matter of taking away rights but protecting rights. Gays have already sued and won various lawsuits against those who do not agree with them, violating their civil liberties and religious liberties. Some of the suits that have been lost are:
1) a private Jewish college in New York was sued and required to offer married student housing to gays.
2) a Christian photographer was sued and lost because she refused to provide services for a gay wedding.
3) a church was sued and lost because it would not provide its building for a gay marriage.
4) a doctor was sued and lost because he would not provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.
5) a Lutheran high school was sued and lost because it would not allow openly gay students in the school.
These types of suits will only get worse the more laws are in place that allow gays to violate the rights and consciences of others. No one is stepping on their toes, they just want their rights respected. In public schools children are being taught things that totally violate their consciences because the gays have rights but they don't. This is a case of reverse discrimination.
Healthnut4freedom
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6
Healthnut4freedom
The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22
Prop 8 lawsuit filed:Going to Federal Court;Olson&Boise Teamup!
See update in post.
Don't Believe everything you Read
Don't Believe everything you Read
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PDY4SDSG4
----------------
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
I for one do not see anything wrong with this
The courts did the right thing. If I were in their position I would do the same.
1-The people voted. Thus upholding the vote of the people was the right thing to do.
2-letting the few that married stay married. It would have been a fiasco to revoke those already married.
Anyone crying foul needs to wake up and smell the roses.
Would you as a justice rebuke the will of the people for a small minority?
I think not. But that's the difference between living in a rainbow filled fairy land and not in reality.
This was voted on by the people of California...
I agree if that is the case, and the majority voted against having Gay Marriages, it should stand. If individuals that do not agree with what the majority voted on they can always move to a State that recognizes marriages between same sex individuals. Obviously, California does not.
I do not believe the Federal Government should have any say in this matter, this is a State matter, and the States have that authority, or they use to from what I was taught.
Wrong.
You really ought to brush up on constitutional law and read below before making such absurd remarks.
Have Vs have Nots
.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Yes, I would.
Because in a REPUBLIC such as this one, the rights of the minority are protected from the majority. No vote of the majority can remove those rights. PERIOD.
I'm terribly sorry that you are so ignorant as to fail to understand that fundamental point.
Tannim...
Who are you calling ignorant???
Follow the thread and you'll see.
That's why indents happen.
yep
however, the jesus freaks don't plan on supporting the Constitution. Just wait and see. This situation is proof. They will hold onto liberty just long enough to serve them. When they figure out what you just stated, they will start their own Jihad. Oh what irony!
So
Marriage is a right......
What land are you living in or what are you smoking?
Cause I want whatever you having!
Show me where marriage between a man and a pig is a right.
More idiots wanting money and prestige from the Government.
[Redacted for language and vulgarity]
CENSORSHIP!
Ok how can I phrase this
Gay men= Their who-who goes in their partners oh-oh
Lesbian women-Their lo-lo licks their buddies he-he
How can I phrase this?
You can have sex without being married.
You can be married without having sex.
You can have sex and be married .
You can have neither.
They are mutually exclusive acts.
You're unhappy about the sex act, and you're applying it to the marriage act.
Why do you hate marriage so?
Don't tell me your a mod
I will flip.
Nope.
Not a moderator.
Just someone with common sense.
You do NOTHING
for our cause and from your response, [Redacted]
That's the irony of silly comments like yours. They reveal SO much. I'd put money on it.
FEDot
Everyone knows your a troll so give it up.
As for gays thinking that marriage is a right they should have I say tough titties says the kitties but the milks still good.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Gays are a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
See the problem there.
Oh that's right you people can look past the tips of your noses.
In any event the gays lost. Why? Well there just isn't enough sane ones out there who could garner enough support.
Tough luck kids but that's the way it is.
I live in America. Do you?
See Loving v. Vrigina, et al.:
Now, since Romer v. Evans the Court has determined that sexual orientation is a suspect class for discrimination purposes, it is on the same level for Equal Protection Grounds as race and ethnicity and gender and religion. Therefore the same standards apply.
As for the pig non sequitor, pigs can only give consent if they work in government, or have religious biases that defy logic and common sense.
As for the rest, you mistake the sex act for the marriage act. No married person would ever make that basic mistake, because we KNOW they're different.
Class dismissed.
Another idiot
I swear to God,Allah, and Odin. The next idiot who compares anal rights to the struggles of slaves is going to pay.
Comparing the two is insulting to African Americans who's ancestors where held as such.
1-Some male lounging around having anal relations with as many of his partners as he can is not comparable to a black slave picking cotton in the fields of North Carolina!
2-TWO males having anal sex and then going out to a bath house to have even more sex is not comparable to a slave hanging from a tree because he tried to escape to Canada from the south and was caught.
3-Some Lesbians adopting a child and then turning around and telling the state that there sexing each other should be recognized by others as a right is not comparable to a family of slave being separated from each other by being sold at auction.
I hate those who would dare compared the slavery in our nation to a bunch of bath house,martini drinking,club surfing,sexual deviants!
If there was a hell that's were these people would end up.
Nice reply
You didn't waste any time and reverted to namecalling in the title.
That means you have no argument.
Not my fault you don't know what the law says and are blinded by your own personal prejudices.
If you
Sit in your ivory tower and compare the struggles of a race of people to the struggles of a few butt hungry males then yes. You are an idiot in my book.
By their fruits you shall know them
I simply quoted the law as it stands.
Struggles for equality take many forms over time. Not just blacks in this nation post-war-of-secession, not just Indians in the 40s against the British, not just the Colonists against the Crown, and not just the Britsh barons against King John, either.
I sit in no ivory tower, either. I have been one face among millions in this fight, on the side of equality and against the side of bigotry and religion-based intolerance, fear, and ignorance.
Tannim...
When does the sexuality of an individual become a right, last time I checked it was a choice.
You need to recheck then
Genetics matter and dictate.
And you mistakenly transfer the sex act to the marriage act.
The two are not the same thing at all.
Then I stand by my initial assessment
You're an idiot.