Be sure to read my Plug and Play column that follows this.A challenge to Prop 8 has now been filed in Federal Court. I am not going to comment on whether this is a wise move or not, but it certainly keeps the issue alive (as if it needed a boost).
The attorneys argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of granting them full marriage rights is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The attorneys are former rivals in the 2000 Bush v Gore suit that handed the presidency to W.
Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district court on behalf of two California gay couples.
Interesting.
I said yesterday that our resolve was strengthened. Not just mine.
The attorneys argue that relegating same-sex couples to domestic partnerships instead of granting them full marriage rights is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The attorneys are former rivals in the 2000 Bush v Gore suit that handed the presidency to W.
Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district court on behalf of two California gay couples.
Interesting.
I said yesterday that our resolve was strengthened. Not just mine.
Oh, the caption for the picture at the beginning of the column, from the San Francisco Chronicle is:
Spouses Frank Capley-Alfano (left to right) and Joe Capley-Alfano of San Francisco hold each other while listening to speakers during a meeting for an action before the service at St. Francis Lutheran Church in San Francisco.
1 comment:
OMG, to put this so delicate of an issue before the same U.S. Supreme Court that involved itself in a purely political state's rights issue as how the votes should be counted in the 2000 election in the one state of Florida...?!!!?!!! No, nada, not now for sure! As someone who has some small education in the history of Constitutional law, then NEVER in the history of our nation, with the possible exception of the Watergate tapes (an 8-0 decision in favor of the public, in spite of past decisions)has the Supreme Court considered hearing any state's law(s) on marriage. Even today the laws of many states in regards to, "marriage," would defy logic. Only when the Massachusetts' Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage did that state's other, numerous "discriminatory," regulations related to marriage also go by the wayside. The issue of, "privacy," and its relation to same-sex relationships did however get struck-down by the Supreme Court in cases that involved Texas and Georgia. Those two(2) cases however came under the assumption that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for an invasion of privacy. This was also the very same reason that Roe vs. Wade was decided as it was. Nevertheless, to assume that the, "right to privacy," will include any state's, "right," to define or regulate marriage, then it will most likely fail. I do not know what the constitution of California allowed prior to the amendment that nullified same-sex marriage; but, one would think that now it most certainly prohibits future same-sex marriages. I do not believe that every political/legal issue should be subject to a, "majority," vote of the public. Nor do I believe or agree with any state that prohibits rights granted to some but denied to others. I'm just not sure that I want THIS court to decide what could eventually become Federal law, over-which no state could have precedence.
Post a Comment