Comments on: More amicus, more animus

By: Tony David

Tony David — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:47:59 +0000

“Facts are stubborn things.” They hold up in a court of law.

The trial provided proof of animus and NO proof of harm in having gay marriage. This says all it needs to.

Furthering that rationale, religion is a matter of faith, not fact, so faith (pro or con) will fall to make the impression many believe it might (or should).

However, with people Like Scalia at the highest levels of the judiciary, it isn’t surprising to see any and all angles of this issue being argued.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:17:35 +0000

Richard,

You’ve made your point several times now.

I don’t know whether Olson/Boies are encouraging amicus briefs. I suspect that whomever is supporting us are coordinating through them (which is my guess as to why there are no organizations – ACLU, church groups, gay groups, anyone – filing such briefs). This may be due to a desire to control the message. In particular, Olson/Boies argued in court that Prop 8 came to be due to anti-gay religious bias and they may well wish not to present pro-gay religious examples to dilute that point. I just don’t know.

It is true that no supportive churches have filed. But it is not true that there are no supportive churches (as I’m sure you are well aware). I guess you’ve forgotten the many churches and denominations who formally opposed Proposition 8 along with the pastors who showed up outside courthouses the first weeks that marriage was legal to volunteer their services.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:08:24 +0000

Hey, I’m optimistic because I know that the coming flood of amicus briefs from all the gay-supportive moderate Christian groups will be arriving any day now. I bet they’re already in the mail.

By: Amicus

Amicus — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:01:42 +0000

Wow, thanks, Tim. I can’t believe you did all that yeoman’s work of reading through so much stuff! Impressive.

By: David C.

David C. — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:55:01 +0000

If the court needed a more compelling argument for upholding the Walker ruling, these briefs supply it in their word and spirit, profoundly asserting that Prop 8 was completely and totally motivated by animus—and a whole hell of a lot of ignorant prejudice.

The equal protection clause was specifically and explicitly designed to protect US citizens from the likes of these “friends” of the court.

By: David Farrell

David Farrell — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:47:09 +0000

So am I to understand that Paul McHugh is actually arguing that heterosexuals should get preferential treatment where marriage is concerned because heterosexuals are, well… stupid?

Just asking.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:57:43 +0000

Timothy,

When you say that so far, Tamara L. Cravitis submitted the only pro-plaintiff amicus brief, am I supposed to interpret that as your request that I should also submit an amicus brief? (I’m clearly not qualified, but I will write one if you insist.)