 by snicks |
Prop 8 roundup: Olbermann and Takei take on the political and personal ramificationsAbove you can see a segment from last night's Countdown, as Keith Olbermann chats with John Dean about the federal lawsuit filed yesterday to have Prop 8 overturned. Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies fought on opposite sides when Bush vs. Gore (which contested the 2000 election) was taken to court, but they've teamed up to take on the fight for marriage equality (sort of like when bitter rivals Godzilla and Rodan joined forces to defeat the evil Ghidrah, the three-headed monster). They also discuss the trepidation that many LGBT groups have, fearing "ill-timed lawsuits": The groups released a new publication, "Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California." This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. Meanwhile, George Takei and husband Brad Altman appeared on Larry King Live last night to discuss Prop 8, being legally married, and why that distinction is so important. (Olson and Boies also appeared for a lengthy and level-headed discussion of their joined forces.) You can see that clip below ... and if marriage-equality ever does make it to the Supreme Court, George and Brad can be Exhibit A. Submitted by on Thu, 2009-05-28 08:53. |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Why didn't Obama fail?
Because that would take
Because that would take logical aforethought to mention. When dealing with the reason why, they have no logical stance, so must spout hate and religious bias to defend their positions. They know both of these are hot button issues with our side. Getting us spitting mad and twisted up in our own outrage is the only way they can win. An incoherent monster is the easiest to defeat.
Besides, they wouldn't want to expose their prejudice about interracial marriages/children in the mean while.
Flummoxing
Pastor dude: "a child needs a mother and father or it is doomed to failure, blah blah, blah"
Instead of saying "that is somewhat insulting to single parents", or "me and my wife have a kid..." like she did:
Sane person says, "That's just not true that a child is doomed to failure if he's being raised by a single parent. Obama's father left the country to return to Africa when he was quite young and he was raised by a single mom, and look how he turned out. And besides, now that we're on the issue, being African American yourself, you must know how important marriage rights are. When President Obama was born his parents interracial marriage wasn't even recognized in 7 States, In seven U.S. States. Surely you can see the importance for a family to have the couples marriage recognized...? Right?"
Do not forget Mothra!
Mixed
Ted Olson and David Boies have great intentions in their presentations on their suit in the federal courts and up front we should be pleased that two formal rivals including Olson are stepping up and joining forces. Strategy aside, how is this any different than the recent challenges to DOMA and federal employee benefits? There are many who argued against suits for sodomy and interracial marriages at the time they were brought and yet they succeeded in the end. I am worried that it might be running at windmills but at the same time when IS it appropriate? We do have legislatures approving as well as courts in different ways. I think we should bring this suit though because the whole idea of voting on rights in general is heinous and we should put that issue to bed. The SCOTUS should answer that simple question itself to protect all of us regardless of the whole issue. In fact SCOTUS did rule in favor of this in the Colorado case about a constitutional amendment passed by the public that discriminated against job and economic discrimination. Sure there are a potential of 4 for us and 4 against us with Anthony Kennedy in the middle, but if we don't take on both isssues (marriage rights and voting on rights) now when is it the right time?
There is no such thing as
The "right time"
Actually, your comment about having less chance of winning this as time goes by is simply incorrect. The reason is twofold. First, the current makeup of the court implies to a lot of people that any suit like this would fail, and the best we could do is lose 5-4. Secondly, the court by its nature is not fast to change, and puts a high degree of value on consistency with the past. Therefore, the odds of winning INCREASE as time goes on and the society as a whole moves farther down the path of gay acceptance.
Further, a loss now could be really damaging. For example, some of the early court cases involving racial civil rights were lost, resulting in real harm to the civil rights movement. It was just such a case (I don't recall the name of it) that led to the acceptance of the "separate but equal" doctrine for so many years. The same could happen here. A loss now with this suit could reinforce the legal backing of the idea of prohibiting gay marriage, making it less likely for state courts to rule in its favor, and perhaps even having enough sway with just enough voters and legislators to swing popular votes or congressional votes. And the Supreme Court is so reverent toward precedent that even a more liberal court in the future would he hesitant to readily overrule a decision rendered against us now.
By this argument, waiting accomplishes two things. First, it allows more turnover on the court, which over the next few years could easily result in a much more liberal court than we have now. Second, the social evolution we're seeing on this issue could make it more likely that the court, which is supposed to be immune to these things but isn't fully immune, would make a ruling as revolutionary as this one would be. And make no mistake, this would indeed be a revolutionary ruling that would reverberate for decades.
Having said all that, I have very mixed feelings. I so totally admire the effort, the principles of the two lawyers, and the passion of everyone rooting them on. And it's so obvious that the suit reflects something that will ultimately prevail. But the dangers expressed above are very real.
eggs
What frightens me is that these lawyers are laking the history of support for or from the GLBT community, I mean are they representing a case for a group like the ACLU, or are they simply presenting a case because they think it's the right thing to do? It seems that, as a community, we would be forced to place all of our eggs in one basket that is being carried by someone we hardly know who doesn't have as much to personally lose as we have to lose if they drop the basket.
larry king...
i didn't watch the whole show, but did anyone challenge the pastor guy on the whole "kids need a mom and dad" thing?
what about parents who are drug addicts and abandon their child for hours or even days at a time? what about a child who has lost a dad in war? is their mom supposed to force herself on some guy to have more children or to have a father figure?
what about women who can't have children for health reasons?
if anyone can look me in the eye and actually come up with a defense, i would probably shut up, but ah.....they really can't. so...no shutting up from me.
:-P
P.S. ellen and portia can be exhibit B!
Carol Leifer
ah ok....
I can't view it at work.
most of these people who are against it have weak arguments. that's why it's so annoying, yet hilarious all at once for me.
Larry King
I happened to catch a good bit of Larry King last night with Olson and Boies. And I must say that I sat there a bit stunned. As one of the old-timers around here, to watch three old straight guys on a mainstream cable news show discussing how the fight for same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and just the right thing to do--well, it is stunning. A seismic shift, I daresay.
And as for the pastor and his usual drivel about parents and children. The bottom line is that those opposed to marriage equality really have no valid arguments so they fall back on theoretical garbage about the cornerstone of society and children and whatever. Yes, we must protect the children! They've lost the argument and they know it.
I think the only reply to them is just that. They have lost the argument. They are on the wrong side of history and will be judged as those who have fought against civil rights are always judged. Harshly.