SOUNDBITES — “People’s personal views of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships naturally influence their views of our lawsuit. However, it is important to remember that the legal question does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people’s personal preferences. The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution.” —Perry v Schwarzenegger attorney David Boies, who, as a Christian, disagrees that “same-sex marriages are inconsistent with religious teachings” and notes, as a lawyer, “it is irrelevant” [Philadelphia Inquirer]
david boies
“The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution”
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
tinkerbell
I initially thought these guys were only in the struggle as a publicity stunt, but I’m now convinced that they are our allies. I’m in with them. They now have me convinced.
emb
Courts and legislatures are the place for civil rights decisions, not the hands of wild-eyed fundamentalist yahoos and misguided religious cultists with deep pockets.
MrBojangles
Can we put this up on a few billboards so people will finally get it?
Cam
To the people who say that courts aren’t the right place for this, I want to remind them that in the year 2000, around 40% of the state of Alabama voted to keep an anti-interracial marriage law on the books. Even though this law had no power because it was superceded by federal law you still had that many people, in the year 2000 supporting it.
terrwill
While we gained one in Washington and lost one in Maine. One of the most encouraging events isn’t getting a lot of play. The rightwing-nutbag zealots got a huge bitch slap by the moderates in the Repugnatcan party. In the 28th District in NY the RWNBZs forced a moderate repub out who supported abortion and Gay marriage. Scarah Pallin, Beck, Hannity and their vile ilk got behind the extreme conserative party candidate. The jilted rep candidate then supported the Democrat and thankfully the lunatic fringe lost and the Dem was elected by a significant margin.
Goes to prove all vile poo these scumbags are spewing about “getting back to traditional values” are being rejected even by the moderate repubs. Virgnia only the last election got somewhat blue, so going red wasn’t that much of a suprise. As far as New Jersey Corizine lost because of the skyrocketing taxes in that state. Most voters polled stated moral “values” had nothing to do with their voting for Chunky Christy but rather dollar “values” So while the RWNBZs can boast how “the tide has turned” they are as usual only preaching to the choir and that choir is singing a tired old tune that the majority of Americans are tired of hearing……
TimNCGuy
@Terrwill
The only problem is that the dem who won in NY doesn’t support marriage equality. He is more conservative than the republican who was forced out of the race.
Attmay
@6 Tim (boy how I miss the “reply” feature):
Just because someone is anti-same sex marriage doesn’t make them a conservative. Same sex marriage is not a “liberal” issue, and framing it as such is a mistake.
Bot
The Supreme Court has already spoken. Perhaps Mr. Boies should do some more “scholarly research”:
The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
Bot
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
Steve
One case from over a hundred years ago does not control, when there have been multiple cases in the intervening time.
The important and recent Supreme Court decisions in this matter also include Loving V. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence V. Texas. They are summarized in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
All three decisions cite the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving declares that the right to marry the person of ones choice is a fundamental right. Romer declares that gay people may be a “protected class”. Lawrence declares that intimate, adult relationships are “part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.”
FakeName
Steve, while it would be nice to believe that Loving, Romer and Lawrence add up to constitutional protection for same-sex marriage, SCOTUS has already ruled. In Baker v Nelson, a 1972 case out of Minnesota, SCOTUS dismissed an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court denying marriage equality. The MN court specifically ruled that the 14th Amendment (and several others) was not violated by state denial of marriage to same-sex couples and that Loving does not apply to same-sex marriage. SCOTUS denied the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question”, which is a ruling on the merits of the case, meaning that it is binding on all lower federal courts until SCOTUS explicitly overrules it. Given that SCOTUS went out of its way in Lawrence to state that Lawrence did not apply to the marriage question, the decisions you cite cannot be relied upon. Several state and federal courts have relied on Baker in upholding the constitutionality of marriage bans already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
From a practical standpoint, even if Baker didn’t exist there is no way given the current makeup of SCOTUS that a marriage ban will be found unconstitutional. Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will vote to uphold such bans which means that all five of the remaining Justices would have to vote to strike them down. That’s assuming that there are even four Justices on the Court who would vote to hear a case in the first place, which is doubtful. Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg might vote to hear the case and vote in favor of SSM. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence in which he explicitly stated that Lawrence didn’t guarantee anything about marriage. Sotomayor was asked about Baker during her confirmation hearings and dodged the question.
Steve
Baker was a very narrow decision. Lower courts are bound by the decision only to the issues that were specifically decided by the Court in dismissing the case control. In that case, SCOTUS issued a one-sentence order dismissing the case “for want of a substantial federal question.” If I read that sentence correctly, Baker does not control any case that has any substantial federal question. The obvious question (of who may marry whom) may not have been a substantial federal question at that time, but it may well be one now. And the other question (can a state grant or revoke a right to only a fraction of its citizens) was not asked previously.
Of course, we will all read the decisions when they are published. Having filed the case, Mssrs. Boies and Olson will surely follow through, so there will surely be some decisions forthcoming.
FakeName
You’re not reading the sentence correctly. SCOTUS is saying that no argument rejected in Baker may be used by any lower federal court to come to a conclusion opposite that of the Baker decision. The Minnesota SC found no violation of the First, Eighth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments and specifically ruled that Loving does not apply to same-sex marriage. I’m rather hard-pressed to see what’s left in the Constitution that plaintiffs believe invalidates Prop 8. Several federal and state appellate courts have already relied on Baker in upholding the constitutionality of state constitutional amendments and otherwise refusing to recognize same-sex marriage.
Flex
Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial begins on 1-11-2010 @ 8:30 AM. The religious zealots are trying hard to prevent it from being aired on cable television, because they don’t want the world to see how religious corporations such as Mormon inc., Catholic Enterprise, and Evangelical Mega franchises, are money laundering schemes that make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits by bringing a vote on our rights.
We must rise up against the bible thumping, Jesus fearing lunatics, and remove their disgusting religion from our intimate lives!