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


Boies doesn't have a , says she who prefers Marital

by Jeremy Hooper

In a recently posted Salon interview, accomplished attorney David Boes said the following about his courtroom opponents in the federal Prop 8 case:

SALON: You’ve said that a good lawyer must objectively understand his opponent’s argument to be successful. In the case of gay marriage, what exactly is your opponent’s argument?

BOIES: Well, a good lawyer has got to understand his opponent’s argument to the extent that there is one. I think that this case is probably the case in which my opponent has had less of an argument than in any case that I can think of. They have essentially a slogan, a bumper sticker, a tautology: They say “marriage is between a man and a woman.” That’s the question. That’s not the answer. And they don’t have any reasons why that ought to be the answer.
David Boies [Salon]

Fair enough. Many of us feel that way. For those of us who've concretely pinpointed and committed to equal marital access under civil law, we do tend to see our talking point-happy opponents as only advancing as far as they have because their fear and biases have managed to maintain a rhetorical embrace, even while their promised outcomes have failed to come to fruition in any of the jurisdictions where marriage equality is a state-level reality.

But how does the most vocal layvoice on the other side, Maggie Gallagher, sum up Boies' assessment? Well, like so:

Salon asks David Boies to describe the arguments for marriage as the union of husband and wife. Boies is clueless.

These are the guys who keep lauding each other as brilliant?

David Boies Doesn't Have a Clue [NOM]

My goodness, she's become disagreeable! A man who most everyone can agree is learned and accomplished fails to see merit in her side's arguments, and all of a sudden he is "clueless"? Well we're not sure what courtroom Maggie was observing (bare feet and all), but from the transcripts we've read, Boies had more Clues than the president of the "I Love Miss Scarlett" fan club! Actually, not just clues -- we'd say he had enough answers to solve what could be and should be a very easy legal puzzle, if not for the other side's insistence on so thoroughly (and offensively) muddying the constitutional waters.

Look, obviously we couldn't disagree more with the pro-Prop 8 side's arguments in favor or majority tyranny and discrimination. But not because they, as lawyers, are fundamentally clueless or less-than-brilliant. THEY'RE JUST WRONG! If Maggie wants to attack what Boies says, then that is the fairest of fair games. But reducing the aptitude and character of a lone member of the legal profession in the same way that her pals on the modern far-right have long discredited the independent judiciary as a whole? It's just so incredibly weak!

Not to mention we now have an insatiable urge to watch Cher and Dionne make over Tai.

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

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails