Comments on: Are Lawsuits The Best Way To Go?

By: Jutta Zalud

Jutta Zalud — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:36:40 +0000

“Conservatives love to cite the book “After the Ball” as proof that we have an organized agenda. … no gay blog (or person, for that matter) that I know of acknowledges this book …”

I find revealing, which books are mentioned in the “Customers who bought this also bought …” section at the Amazon.com entry of “After the Ball” – 20 “pages” i.e. ca. 100 titles and the majority anti-gay (at least on the first pages, I have not checked all ca 100 titles). Looks as if this book has mainly be bought by people who want to fight against gay rights.

By: Rick in Kansas

Rick in Kansas — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:13:30 +0000

For me, this is the case which should have been filed in opposition to the passage of Prop 8 in the first place rather than the challenges filed in California. The notion that it could be overturned as a revision was doomed from the start. We’ve followed the “advice” of these organizatons as they botched the campaign against the proposition in the first place and then as they offered up a legal argument that was destined to fail. They don’t have my trust any longer.

We already have our disatrous precedent in the federal courts with the rejection for lack of a substantial federal question in the case of Baker v Nelson from 1972, this case cannot possibly be any worse for us than that. So, while there have been some successes in the state by state strategy, there have been some set backs as well and this one was a big one. For those of us living in states like Kansas, that are hovering near the bottom of that state by state list, bolder moves are need than what is being offered by supposedly national organizations that aren’t afraid to hit me up for my financial support but see my rights here as rather low on their list of priorities. To me, this is the right case at the right time. Though some may say that the make up of the Court may not be right yet, the question is when will it ever be? Let’s take our chances when we have as good of one as we might ever get.

By: celticdragon

celticdragon — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:47:20 +0000

I reluctantly agree that this is not the time to go forward with this case. It took twenty years of preparation before gun rights advocates were ready to take a case before the SCOTUS, and that was with something already in the Bill Of Rights!! Twenty years of legal articles in prestigious journals, getting politicians in place and changing public perceptions.

I don’t want to wait twenty years…but there is work to be done before we make this move. I am a transgendered woman still married to my wife…(and I own guns). I want all my GLBT brothers and sisters to be able to have the same choices as I have available.

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:51:07 +0000

I just saw Ted Olsen and his law partner on Larry King. I think that their sincerity was impressive. Even if the Federal Court refuses to hear the case the fact that someone such as Ted Olsen attempting to take the issue into the Federal Court system is impressive …..at least to myself.

By: CB James

CB James — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:18:04 +0000

I understand both the pro and con arguments here. I just want to say that the LGBT organizations are largely the same ones that lost the battle over Prop. 8. In fact, didn’t one of them actually have an anti-prop 8 letter from Obama in their hands that they did not release or use in any way even though they had express permission from Obama to do so?

I think it’s time to trust ourselves instead of the organizations.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:30:34 +0000

Thanks for explaining, Timothy.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:01:42 +0000

Ok I’m going to ask a really stupid question. Conservatives love to cite the book “After the Ball” as proof that we have an organized agenda. Is there any legitimacy to their claim?

Alex,

No, there is no legitimacy. We do not have a centralized advocacy movement, though of course lobbying groups do work with each other.

As for After the Ball, I read it years ago and thought it was interesting and worth considering. But as far as I know, it has not been influential on either the thinking or organization of any gay rights groups.

By: John

John — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:47:37 +0000

Jim,

I am not sure that Olsen’s lawsuit in the end is going to be about marriage equality. I suspect that the federal question is going to be an equal protection question on a more general level.

What Olsen seems to be saying is that a fundamental right (in this case the right to marry, but the specificity of the right isn’t all that important to the case) was enjoyed by a minority group. That right was then taken away from the minority, but not the majority, by a simple vote. The question seems to be: Does the majority have the right to take a right away from a minority?

In most of the other state cases, constitutional ammendments were passed before marriage equality was attained. Therefore, same sex couples were denied marriage equality, but it wasn’t taken away from them.

It’s an interesting question and worthy of federal review. It also really has little to do with marriage equality generally and at this point would only apply to states that had granted marriage equality and then tried to take it away (which I believe only applies to California).

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:54:57 +0000

Such an attempt needs to go forward. In 1857 Chief Justice Taney thought that he solved the succession and slavery questions with the Dred Scott decision. He didn’t.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:24:28 +0000

I’m still trying to figure out why now, at this very moment in time, we’re so afraid a SCOTUS ruling will set us back. Sure, we could lose some face if SCOTUS does the worst thing they can to us (punt it back to the states), but technically we have nothing to lose. If SCOTUS sets a precedent against overturning states DOMA laws, then we’ve lost nothing and gained nothing.