Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
big days

Is Your Stomach All a Flutter Knowing the Perry Prop 8 Showdown Is About to Begin?

Today, in San Francisco, the federal civil lawsuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger will begin. There, Ted Olson and David Boies will argue, against Charles Cooper and ProtectMarriage.com (and not the State of California, which was all, pshhhhaw), that homosexuals have the right to marry. This is going to be a whole lot of fun!

The gist of the argument from Olson/Boies and the their sugar daddies at the American Foundation for Equal Rights? Mostly that Proposition 8 violates the the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But also that supporters of Prop 8 — the men and women who campaigned so vigorously for it — actively sought to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and that makes it, like, a really mean law.

We’ll be covering the courtroom antics over the coming weeks here on Queerty, but we should also note that AFER is doing an excellent job using the Information Superhighway (and The Twitter) to keep fanboys up to date on all the latest trial proceedings. That’s a pretty big deal, because when was the last time the Human Rights Campaign or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — organizations that railed against Perry when it was first filed — ever gave such transparent insight into their movements?

This is a very exciting thing to watch. But we’re also a little bit like: ZOMG this could go horribly wrong and screw us. Let’s tune in!

(Pictured: Ted Olson, Kristina Schake, Chad Griffin, via AFER)

    • Aaron

      Funny cuz that’s basically what I just updated in Facebook. Nervous but feeling but thinking positively.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      This is a very exciting thing to watch. But we’re also a little bit like: ZOMG this could go horribly wrong and screw us.

      Well, yeah… but ANYTHING with the potential to do this much sweeping good can go horribly wrong. And whatever decisions eventually come of this, I’m looking forward to hearing the evidence officially and publicly presented.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      #3: Hey, if that’s what it takes to pay the bills… they’re far better than the obnoxious kind that turns a page into a maze you have to navigate your mouse through if you don’t want the content covered over.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      Hey, I’d rather see add banners for American Idol than ads for the Mormon church on here. Nervous but hopeful about this lawsuit.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ

      Remember, these attorneys are not the resume robot mousequetters that run Gay Inc., they are seasoned sharks motivated only by the smell of blood. GO OLSON BOISE!

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jennifer

      stomach all aflutter is exactly how i feel. can’t understand why my hispanic husband doesn’t understand that equal protection under the law protects him too. in the not so distant past our marriage would have been illegal in many states as we are considered an interacial couple under the law.

      staying optimistic for the best possible outcome!!

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz

      I’ve waited all of my life for this historic moment.

      We are all behind you Olson and Boise. Go get ’em.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 11:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark

      The U.S. Supreme Court has a conservative majority. Just how do you think Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc. will rule given their stated opposition against gay rights???

      These are the idiots who overturned Brown v. the Board of Education.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican


      There is no conservative majority in the sense that you are suggesting. The conservative wing is made up of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. That’s four votes. Yes, Justice Kennedy often sides with the conservatives on many issues, but in some major areas, he votes with the liberals. Most relevant to this case, Justice Kennedy was the author of both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ Republican

      I can’t be bothered to link up but if you go on towleroad, he has the link to the Newsweek essay Olson did and in it he pushes Scalia into a corner about his previous voting and how it meant he’d have to be for gay marriage.

      This guy is impressive. Read his essay. I was swooning. I love it when people argue with facts and not crazy emotions. Brilliant.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ

      The failure of some to disobey the law of equal protection has created a twisted barbed-wire fence of our marriage laws, entagling all kinds people and creating bizzare legal situations and entanglements.

      This one Supreme Court mega-ton blast of justice will clean it up in an instant. I have my protective glasses, popcorn and can’t wait for the countdown!

      Jan 11, 2010 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bystander

      The only way this case can be ultimately successful is with 5 votes on the supreme court. I’m not convinced breyer and Stevens will vote to enact gay marriage nationwide, and even if they do you still need another vote. Maybe Kennedy will flip, but his opinion in Lawrence isn’t very encouraging….. Yes he is in the majority, but was very clear to ensure it didn’t set precedent which could be used to overturn marriage bans.

      This lawsuit will not have effect just in California. It will ultimately go to the Supreme Court which will have the choice to overturn all marriage bans nationwide or leave them all in place. I don’t think the court has the stomach to choose the former.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Scott

      It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. Until the right-wing, religious fanatics in this country stop trying to control everybody else and force their “morals” down the throat of the country, there can be no real freedom in the United States. Civil rights cannot simply be “voted away,” that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Religious activists should be left out of these decisions completely. I invite you to my web pages devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on our freedom: http://freethegods.blogspot.com/2009/06/san-franciscos-gay-pride-parade.html

      Jan 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • $0.02

      This may be a ground breaking lawsuit. We really need to send our support and if we can come out and show others as well as ourselves that we have power as a community and that we WILL fight and fight hard for our rights and we can come together cross culturally, racially, religions/lack of religion you name it. If we have the right to pay taxes we have the right to partake in all the rights, privileges and responsibilities as any straight couple.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      “It will ultimately go to the Supreme Court…” Not necessarily. There’s always the chance they won’t take it… though at this point it hardly seems likely.

      “he pushes Scalia into a corner about his previous voting and how it meant he’d have to be for gay marriage.” Not quite. Scalia’s dissent says that the logic used in the majority opinion leaves no basis to deny gay marriage; as is the nature of dissents, he doesn’t *accept* that logic.

      “These are the idiots who overturned Brown v. the Board of Education.” They did what now? When did that happen, and why wasn’t it in the news?

      Jan 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NoDoubleStandards

      Scalia is a hypocrite. Read his opinion in Kelo.

      Jan 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Regan Du

      Judge Walker already has already had some of his rulings handed back to him before the trial started. Demanding the release of notes etc. That was stupid.

      Now I understand the big boys at the high court said NO TV judge Walker, you know better than that.

      This whole scenario is an exercise in narcissism.

      Jan 12, 2010 at 3:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.