« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Prop 8 fed suit won't have a clusterf*ck of counsel

by Jeremy Hooper

Some of the LGBT community's big groups have been denied in their request to interview in the Boise/Olsen federal marriage equality suit. Law Dork brings us the following:

The news today has come from San Francisco that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has denied the request of several LGBT community groups in California — represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR — to intervene in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit challenging the constitutional validity of Proposition 8.

Judge Walker did, however, grant the request of the City of San Francisco to intervene. According to Lambda Legal’s Jason Howe, the judge “said they showed a government interest that wasn’t represented by any of the current parties.”

What this means, in short, is that Ted Olson and David Boies, along with San Francisco City Attorney David Herrera, will be the lawyers now controlling this challenge to Proposition 8, considered by many to be the most broad, grand-scale attack on marriage discrimination of all those brought in recent years.
BREAKING: Judge Denies LGBT Orgs, Grants San Fran Request to Join Prop 8 Challenge [Law Dork]

The other big piece of news: A January 11, 2010 trial date has been set. A date that could, if history is any guide, seem like a bad one for love, American style:

1/11/1974: ABC airs final episode of "Love, American Style"

But one that history also shows us could bode well for justice, American style:

1/11/1973: Trial of Watergate burglars begins in Washington DC

We're going to take the more optimistic, more Deep Throated view. And we're also going to hope that our deserved win won't lead to a repeat of another 1/11 historical event:

1/11/1861: Alabama becomes 4th state to secede from the union

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Sorry, but I could do without Alabama. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Brian | Aug 19, 2009 5:23:53 PM

I am somewhat glad that they have limited the number of parties to the suit. Herrera's office is brilliant, and I would have been exceptionally happy if Stewart from Herrera's office had handled all of the oral arguments in the CA suit. She was brilliant. If these cases are won or lost in oral arguments, then Stewart is the one I want arguing our case.

The "Yes on H8" lawyers were asking for the case to be dismissed, and there there not be a trial. They lost. If there was to be a trial, they wanted it to be no sooner than summer 2010. They lost. I can't think of a single point that the court ruled in their favor on today. These are minimal victories, and ultimately they may not mean much, but it is heartening.

One reason that I think we should push for a 2010 initiative is to eliminate the argument could be made that we don't really need Prop H8 overturned, otherwise we would be pushing for it in 2010. Though that, by itself, really might not be a valid rationale for 2010.

Yes on H8 is also arguing that we are not a powerless political minority (supposedly hoping to eliminate consideration of a federal "suspect class" designation), but that's a bogus argument. Our political enemies are much more powerful, as evidenced by the fact that every time marriage equality has been put up to a popular vote, we have never won equality, and (at least eventually) have lost to pernicious measures. When you have one big bully opposing a much smaller minority, you can't argue that the minority is politically powerful - at least not in my mind.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 19, 2009 10:30:36 PM

So the date's been set. Awesome. I'm going to be doing a lot of works for Olsen, Boies, and Herrera around January 11th!

"We got enough cooks, get the hell out of our kitchen!"

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Aug 20, 2009 5:06:31 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails