Leaders of our stellar gay advocacy community have denounced the decision by superstar heterosexual attorneys David Boies and Theodore B. Olson to take marriage equality to the Supreme Court.
I don't blame them.
If Boies and Olson succeed in winning equality for gay Americans it will at long last expose the complete and utter incompetence of the gay advocacy establishment; and it just might put Joe Solmonese out of a job. Joe's gotta be one angry fairy!
The ACLU, LAMDA, and HRC among others argue that if this approach to the Supreme Court were to fail, all would be lost. We should stay away from the Supremes until Obama and the next Democrat in the White House have the chance to rebalance the Court in favor of liberals--which might only take another 8 to 12 years, maybe 16, maybe 24...maybe...
One fly in that ointment is that Sotomayor is not a liberal but rather a moderate bordering on conservative--which hasn't stop Solmonese from endorsing her because Obama's word is all he needs. I'm not so easy.
Sotomayor has no record on gay rights and has given no indication that she will be pro-equality based on sexual orientation--but she's Obama's girl so Solmonese has happily locked his ankles behind his neck.
But back to marriage equality and The Supremes.
The longer the HRC/LAMDA marriage equality strategy as it is now constituted drags on, the longer Joe Solmonese and his kind will enjoy job security. To take the California obscenity straight to the nation's highest court, and by a pair of heterosexuals is very bad news for the gay gay advocacy profession, indeed. The job might just get done.
In case you've had your head up your ass, Bush v. Gore 2000 attorneys, David Boies and Theodore B. Olson will stand as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit intended to overturn Proposition 8.
It is a development that has jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few. But Boies and Mr. Olson said that in the wake of the California Supreme Court's decision, the gay marriage fight is not important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences. “Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”
The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court.
While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California. “If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.
Not everyone in the gay rights movement, however, was thrilled by the sudden intervention of the two limelight-grabbing but otherwise untested players in the bruising battle over Proposition 8. Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage.
“It’s not something that didn’t occur to us,” Matt Coles, the director of the LGBT project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said of filing a federal lawsuit. “Federal court? Wow. Never thought of that.”
Mr. Coles then attempted to scratch his non-existent balls.
And as for the "untested" accusation, gay rights advocates may know how to suck a dick, but Ted Olson has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court and won more than three-fourths of them. That's testing enough for me.
Olson explains that this lawsuit — which also seeks an injunction blocking the marriage ban until the matter can be resolved — falls squarely in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education. “Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Olson, who served as solicitor general under Bush.
“The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.” In a telephone interview with The New York Times, Olson outlined a possible legal strategy: “if the preliminary injunction is denied, we could appeal promptly to the Ninth Circuit Court,” a level below the Supreme Court. Depending on decisions there, the case could go even higher. “That’s certainly a possible scenario,” he said.
Veterans of the legal battles over same-sex marriage questioned the suit’s timing, particularly when a conservative majority holds sway in the Supreme Court. “We think its risky and premature,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, adding that a loss at the Supreme Court level could take decades to undo.
Laurence H. Tribe, an expert on constitutional law at Harvard, called the suit “a bold measure,” adding that “the fact that it’s being advanced by people at both ends of the ideological spectrum gives it a certain profile.” Mr. Tribe said the question of timing could be argued from both sides. “There’s a national trend which is obvious, with Vermont, Maine and Iowa,” he said, citing states that have recently legalized same-sex marriage. “But pushing it right now in front of a conservative court is not necessarily the wisest thing to do.”
Ms. Pizer also seemed a touch befuddled by her starrier, more publicized colleagues’ unexpected interest in issues she has spent her professional life arguing. “We have developed these strategies from working on these issues for decades,” she said. “And our strategy grows from that work.”
A strategy, I might add that has clearly been a disaster. In fact, the longer Prop 8 stands, the more ammunition anti-gay forces have to not only stop gay marriage in increasing numbers of states but to also reverse it where it now stands.
On the other hand, Olson seemed confident that the makeup of the Supreme Court was right because of the presence of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, pointing to two cases in which gay rights groups prevailed — a sodomy case in Texas and a constitutional ban on local antidiscrimination laws in Colorado — in which Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “We studied this very, very carefully,” he said, adding that it was difficult to tell clients, “‘Why don’t you go back and wait another five years?’”
The alternative, of course is the status quo: The endless gay marriage fight--and I do mean endless--siphoning off desperately needed resources in terms of time, money and people to deliver equality for gay Americans, equality in education, employment, housing, health care and services.
It is truly the most horrific and astonishing example of a Sisyphean endeavor since Sisyphus himself. And its result--if you can call it that--will be another generation of gay Americans and possibly two denied equality, dignity and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our new Pinocchio-in-chief and his majority minions could easily put an end to this American tragedy and obscenity by federally putting an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Simply adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would quickly put an end to all of this nonsense. But Obama and his Congress are not inclined to do so.
So maybe it will take a Bush legal genius to do so.
The other reason a bold stroke it necessary, in my view is that it would also cut off the terrifying rise of theocracy which is riding the gay rights issue straight to the death of American democracy.
Civilization has not seen Christianity's dark side sweep across the world on such a massive scale since the Crusades. The Bush v. Gore lawyers want to stop it dead in it tracks.
A Supreme Court decision will cut the balls off that as well.
We must remember that this long national nightmare isn't just a fight over same-sex marriage, this is about whether or not voters, courts and state legislators can cast aside the United States Constitution simply because a majority of people in a community don't like someone or because they believe that the Bible tells them so.
Two of the most influential and respected legal powerhouses in the nation have taken the lead on gay civil rights because they see it as an American issue, as an assault on the basic principles of this nation.
They also see that the current strategy is nothing but a sinkhole, an absurd and destructive war that could last for generations.
During a Thursday interview with Boies and Olson, they were "reminded" that there is no legal precedent for defining marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman.
Boies, looking bewildered by the question, asked the reporter if she had never heard of Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, Maine, Connecticut, Canada, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway or South Africa? He then added that by the time this case wends its way to the Supreme Court, the list of legal precedents will have more than doubled if not tripled.
Solmonese has happily locked his ankles behind his neck-
Priceless Richard! Best laugh I've had all day.
Posted by: Alfredo | Tuesday, 02 June 2009 at 07:25 PM
Let's just hope that this isn't an intended loss. That's the kind of crap that I wouldn't put past some conservatives or bible humpers. Is there anyway to check their motives or standing?
Well written Richard.
Posted by: Scot | Wednesday, 03 June 2009 at 12:43 AM