David Boies on Prop 8 ruling: We proved that same-sex marriage won’t hurt society
posted at 7:52 pm on August 4, 2010 by Allahpundit
Note well: He’s emphasizing the factual findings in the case here, not the ostensibly more important legal conclusions about due process and equal protection. That’s smart as a legal strategy insofar as the facts, not the law, are binding on the appellate courts that’ll hear this case, and it’s smart as a political strategy insofar as the average joe will likely be interested in the sociological testimony from the trial but not so much the tedium of due process analysis. If you’re going to use your limited time on camera to push gay marriage to the public, this is precisely the sort of thing you’d want to emphasize.
That said, while it’s no secret that I support gay marriage too, I think they’ve made a needless mistake in pushing this in the courts instead of doing it legislatively state-by-state. The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it. The response to that will be that equality can’t wait, just as it couldn’t wait vis-a-vis school desegregation in the 1950s. Except that (a) no one, including gay-marriage supporters, seriously believes that the harm here is as egregious as the harm to blacks under Jim Crow, and (b) there was no assurance of a legislative solution to racial injustice in the 1950s the way there currently is for gay marriage. A strong majority already favors civil unions; as I noted earlier, opposition to same-sex marriage is in decline and down to 53 percent. When polled, young adults are invariably heavily in favor, guaranteeing that the legal posture on this issue will shift further over the next decade. The real effect of this decision, assuming it’s upheld on appeal, will be to let gay-marriage opponents claim that they were cheated in a debate that they were losing and bound to lose anyway. That’s what’s called a pyrrhic victory. Too bad.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 11 Next »
Sodomy rules.
echosyst on August 4, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Great. I hope they are happy… and God help them when they hit the divorce courts.
upinak on August 4, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Extra cajones
faraway on August 4, 2010 at 7:55 PM
It’s called IN YOUR FACE!
For the gays, people still won’t consider them “married”, no matter what the ruling FROM A GAY JUDGE.
GarandFan on August 4, 2010 at 7:56 PM
All Boies and Olsen proved is that they could find an activist federal judge who was more than willing to flip the citizens of California the Bird.
annoyinglittletwerp on August 4, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Because this shouldn’t be a state-by-state issue. It need to be, and is, a federal Constitutional issue.
JetBoy on August 4, 2010 at 7:58 PM
“You proved” that you got a gay judge. What a victory.
faraway on August 4, 2010 at 7:58 PM
That’s what I’ve been saying. This is like the Arizona law.
People have generally accepted a lack of federal action because the states can make their own laws. Now that’s not the case.
If you want to protect marriage, your own real alternative now is federal action. This will result in more calls and support for federal action, including from people who previously took a “let the states decide” stance.
amerpundit on August 4, 2010 at 7:58 PM
No you didn’t.
Skywise on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Saying it for the second time doesn’t make it right. This is a distinctly social, interpersonal issue. It is an issue of right and wrong, moral and immoral. Those are facts. I will not weigh in with my opinion but will reiterate that merely stating what poll results are on these types of issues makes them no more right, nor more wrong than they were before the issue began. If this were the case, then a polled majority may one day indicate that 53% support murder/rape/pickone; however, it is no more right, nor more wrong than it was at the outset. my 2cent
ted c on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Proved the ‘facts’ in the case the same way that global warming has been proved, the same way that Obama and friends have ‘proven’ that their policies don’t harm the US, that they have saved the US from the failed policies of Bush?
Skandia Recluse on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
We have bigger issues, and the smart conservatives will state that…marriages are useless in a bankrupt society, in a nation in economic despair…there is only one thing right now important, get the economy rolling. Get small business up and running.
It’s the economy…everything else is a diversion.
right2bright on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
If there’s any harm it’s the fault of nature, for it is she who requires a man and a woman.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Headline – Gays Enter Through Back Door
TugboatPhil on August 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Marriage is not a right it is an agreed upon societal norm.
No you can’t marry your dog, nor your bu.. friend. End of story.
Rights come from God, and I doubt God would approve this abomination.
tarpon on August 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM
The actual “tea baggers” won in Court today. No wonder it was Judge “Tea Bagger” who made the ruling.
flintstone on August 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM
The pushback is going to be tremendous.
True_King on August 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM
The vast majority of gays don’t want to get married but they would use the opportunity to import mail order “grooms” for money. This will be useful to the gay community because they can’t increase their numbers ( political clout ) through breeding. They could outnumber heterosexuals in a few decades through this process.
It has to happen. It’s been imagined.
Buddahpundit on August 4, 2010 at 8:02 PM
So then a white judge shouldn’t rule on any racial issue…a female judge shouldn’t rule on a woman’s rights issue…A Jewish judge shouldn’t rule in a Muslim case…
Come on now.
JetBoy on August 4, 2010 at 8:02 PM
Do you think this guy would agree that D.C. v. Heller proved guns aren’t harmful to society?
Or that Bush v. Gore proved that Bush clearly won the election?
amerpundit on August 4, 2010 at 8:02 PM
Like Ace said, thanks for the extra 7% turn out!
RarestRX on August 4, 2010 at 8:02 PM
Except… in the next decade, those young adults will be in their thirties!
Young adults are always to the political left of older adults. (And for thousands of years, older adults have been complaining about the foolishness of younger adults.) Yet for millenia, except for one generation born between 1945 and 1960, young adults have never failed to mature as they grew older.
joe_doufu on August 4, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Here’s an idea, let’s let gay people get married contingent on them consummating it by producing a child together.
FloatingRock on August 4, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Many of these same leftists would decry a white judge ruling against black plaintiffs on a race case or a Jewish judge ruling against Muslim plaintiffs in a religious case.
Ironically enough.
amerpundit on August 4, 2010 at 8:03 PM
I almost forgot.
To embrace the gay agenda is to embrace marxism. They have allied themselves with those who seek to tyrannize us, therefore a pushback is inevitable.
The kenite-Marxists long ago targeted the gay community as a means to destroy marxism’s greatest enemy – Jesus Christ.
True_King on August 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Then pass a Constitutional Amendment…
crr6: your thoughts? I can’t go on without your musings…
Khun Joe on August 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Jet, a lot of us like you. But when you push and push and push… eventually there is going to be a push back and it is not pretty and everything that you and the others pushed for falls apart and you are worse off then where you were.
Don’t push.
upinak on August 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Careful what you ask for. They are going to lose when this gets to SCOTUS.
azkenreid on August 4, 2010 at 8:05 PM
So the judge overturned a state constitution. Where in the federal Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to marry?
Bishop on August 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Now watch the judges do their “dance” trying to keep polygamy, father/daughter, and various other marriage acts that are “discriminatory”.
A father will abuse a daughter, then marry her, and nothing will be done…you just can’t throw out 2,000 years of history because a few people are not capable of withholding animalistic instincts.
right2bright on August 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Judge rules that California doesn’t have the right to pass laws by popular vote.
The fact that he is gay has no bearing on his ruling.
The fact that it goes against what the people chose – no biggie.
The fact the 14th Amendment never covered sex is unimportant.
What matters is a handful of unaccountable unelected people get to dictate how we will live -that’s important.
It’s also called tyranny.
LincolntheHun on August 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
South Park had it right.
BKeyser on August 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
indeed, apparently elections only matter when they win
cmsinaz on August 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Just wait till all those hip young people have kids and find out that their 10-year-old is learning about fisting…and they can’t opt out of it.
rockmom on August 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
From KJL at NRO:
And from William Duncan at NRO as well:
Weight of Glory on August 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
REVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS AND GET ON WITH IT NOW….or quit bytching.
rickyricardo on August 4, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Didn`t a Federal Judge in Mass just decide this the other way. I mean he struck down DOMA saying it was not a Federal issue it was for the States to decide.
bluemarlin on August 4, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Of course, abortion on demand can’t be proven to hurt society in our courts either… what kind of proof is there? They’re requiring us all to dive in together…
ninjapirate on August 4, 2010 at 8:10 PM
What on Earth made you think this IS the goal?
rockmom on August 4, 2010 at 8:11 PM
Good question. Massachusetts federal judge says marriage is a state issue. California federal judge says marriage can’t be decided by the states.
amerpundit on August 4, 2010 at 8:11 PM
I can tell you this… gay marriage will lead to more children being created without mom and dads… and we’re not allowed to make judgement calls about that so there is no defacto proof in our courts…
ninjapirate on August 4, 2010 at 8:11 PM
There are few arenas more political and bias then when you enter the gay arena, and begin debating.
If you brought up actual statistics of gay men behavior, you would yell “foul”. The fact is, it is a deviant lifestyle, but anyone that dares define it, gets slammed…all you have to do is Google Folsom street fair, and you will see what the gay community embraces, and that is a open street fair.
You know there were some fair slave owners, so we should have kept slavery…no, it was an abomination in general, so is the cruising, street fair, gay embracing bath houses. And that is not the minority, you may be that, that is the majority who would fight for those “street fairs”.
right2bright on August 4, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Jesus wept !
stenwin77 on August 4, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Gaylord v. Fabio
Electrongod on August 4, 2010 at 8:12 PM
were elections that held up or segregation fair as they are today?
rob verdi on August 4, 2010 at 8:13 PM
What about the polygamy class? What about the class who want to marry family members and/or minors? Homosexuality is inferior when it comes to marriage. They cannot procreate without help from outsiders. Having a mother and father IS a benefit to most children. The male homosexual lifestyle comes with additional risks, lifespans are lower. Sounds inferior to me.
echosyst on August 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM
At NRO’s “Bench Memos, Ed Whelan weighs in on the outcome:
That last sentence has a link, which implies that Walker is not necessarily neutral.
onlineanalyst on August 4, 2010 at 8:16 PM
What happens when religionists become statists? Their attempts to regulate sex like fishing fails in a Constitutional government.
borntoraisehogs on August 4, 2010 at 8:17 PM
Could you point me to God’s signature on the Constitution?
SnarkVader on August 4, 2010 at 8:17 PM
So I have a jurisprudence question:
Jurists tend to give so much sway to precedent that it frequently trumps all other arguments to the contrary when it comes to court rulings. So what about millennia of legal precedent not just in western societies, but worldwide, that marriage is a unique relationship between an man and a woman?
For a judge to ignore such precedent in an effort push a seismic cultural shift (against the will of the people, no less) is insane, and far beyond the scope of a judge’s Constitutional powers.
The social engineers are running amok.
Beo on August 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights.
Skywise on August 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM
The people spoke loudly and clearly when they voted their opposition to Gay marriage. All it took was one Gay dude to thwart the combined will of the masses of all backgrounds and beliefs.
This is an abomination of our countries founding principles..
It is no different in principle to having the masses vote against slavery and then having their vote negated by one single owner of slaves.
Guardian on August 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Care to rephrase that?
CWforFreedom on August 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM
This debate is so gay.
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM
What everyone misses is that gays already have the same marriage rights and restrictions as straights. As a straight man, I cannot marry another man. The same restriction applies to gay men.
“But you don’t want to, and they do,” you say. Exactly correct! What’s at issue is not equal rights. What’s at issue is they don’t have what they want. They already have equal rights. They want preferential rights. They want the right to change the definition of marriage.
TheBetterHalf on August 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM
There is an awful lot of gloating going on.
Gloating is for when you have a spirited contest using agreed-upon rules and there’s a chance for a rematch.
It’s not for when the rules have been in a state of flux and the loser’s fundamental values are violated.
This will be more bitter than it needed to be. There will be revenge; there will be vindictive and spiteful actions; there will be more focus on scoring points than doing what is right and proper.
cthulhu on August 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM
This is not big news. It would have been a big f’ing deal if this judge had ruled the other way. Now that would have been news.
d1carter on August 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM
You’re a great American.
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM
I’d like to do something else as an alternative strategy – put on the ballot a proposition that allows CIVIL UNIONS for gays/lesbians with all the same rights with the exception of adoption (one pain in the ass at a time). Put it on the ballot and let’s see just how much the Gay community wants “equality” or how much they want to turn over the apple cart
Defector01 on August 4, 2010 at 8:20 PM
The ‘factual finding’ in this case is a crock of sh1t. The judge’s rulin gis a fabrication / utterance of his own perverse views and certainly has nothing to do with the predicate excuse for bringing the matter into his courtroom.
His ruling of the rectitude of gay marriage was completely out of bounds and his judgement on equal protections specious on the face of it as marriage is NOT a ‘right’ and as such not anything the Feds have a damned thing to say about.
When are people going to stand up and say ‘enough’ of judicial activism and the marxicrats of the Federal govt sticking their wick into our lives whenever and whereever they please?
rayra on August 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM
I’m guessing that a reference to the Declaration, “we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights…”
Esthier on August 4, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Since when is it within the power of a state to license a right? I just read the US Constitution and could find no right to marriage listed anywhere. The 10th Amendment states something to the effect powers not reserved to the federal government go to the states and the people. Not one listing of a marriage right in the powers given the Feds. So unless I miss my guess this is none of the feds business and rightly belongs in California, where it was decidedly legal by our court.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 4, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Neither will polygamy. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why it’s OK to ban polygamy but not gay marriage. I’m suspecting that it has something to do with (ta da!) “societal norms” or something…
ddrintn on August 4, 2010 at 8:22 PM
I think you rather overestimate yourself if you think that you have proven that. But that is really a side issue, so let’s say that although you have not proven that, you are nonetheless mostly right. Now, let’s go to by far the main issue. How about trying to prove that overreaching judges do not hurt society when they abrogate the votes and will of the people like Royalist Tyrants.
Tav on August 4, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Dude, aren’t the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, like, the same thing?
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:23 PM
This has nothing to do with religion. Gay marriage cannot be marriage because gay sex is not sex.
Emperor Norton on August 4, 2010 at 8:24 PM
“Don’t worry, honey. All I did was put my **** in Randy’s **** until we orgasmed. But we didn’t have sex or anything.”
“Phew! Thank heaven for that!”
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Exactly. Marriage as a legal and contractual institution and definition is created by the States. The Federal Government does not create marriages, it recognizes marriages at the state level for various purposes such as taxation. Such advantages, privelages, immunities and rights are already given in California just called differently.
How can the 14th come to play in an entirely state affair?
Holger on August 4, 2010 at 8:28 PM
So you and Randy…you’re like…going steady now?
Bishop on August 4, 2010 at 8:29 PM
The biggest pro-Prop 8 activists in my neighborhood are a Democrat, Christian, black couple. As a white Republican, I expect my every vote to be invalidated in liberal California. It will be interesting to see how this couple reacts to this decision–pushed primarily by the party they belong to. It will also be interesting to see how the Obama Administration deals with it (Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage). If they decide to throw the pro-Prop 8 contingent under the bus, how will my black neighbors react? This is an issue that slices through the heart of American society and culture in a way that is not politically partisan. Put on your seat belt, we’re in for a wild ride.
Kalifornia Kafir on August 4, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Depends on whether or not you got a public education.
What? Madison keeps telling me that marriage has nothing to do with sex, and now you’re telling me that unless someone has sex (and apparently *n*l and *r*l really aren’t sex; Clinton – 1, Vast Rightwing Conspiracy – 0) there’s no marriage?
Esthier on August 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM
You tell me, Randy.
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Ask Bill
CWforFreedom on August 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Great… Now Boies and Olson can get it on.
THE CHOSEN ONE on August 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Electrongod on August 4, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Google has no idea what you are referring to. Why not provide a link or something, since you are the electron god.
azkenreid on August 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Yup.
dedalus on August 4, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Government needs to get out of the marriage business.
ButterflyDragon on August 4, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Will not be the first time David Boies has tried to nullify the will of the people with smarassery. Hanging chads to him.
runner on August 4, 2010 at 8:35 PM
(smartassery ? )
runner on August 4, 2010 at 8:36 PM
That’s nice of Mr. Boies to suggest that “same-sex marriage won’t hurt society.” Now, howsabout he try telling that to lovely Cassandra from Sterling, CO? Or would he intimately find out what a small-town Mama Grizzly can do if he were so arrogant to truck such an argument around?
BradSchwartze on August 4, 2010 at 8:36 PM
Oops, I forgot the sarc tag on that post.
Electrongod on August 4, 2010 at 8:36 PM
According to Bill Clinton, that may or may not qualify as sexual relations.
Beo on August 4, 2010 at 8:37 PM
So the complete sexualization of childhood, since the gay agenda will have to be taught as “normal” in K through 12, wlll not have any harmful effect?
AP- your naive support for this “gay marriage” (an oxymoron) folly shows a shallow understanding of the eroticized earthquake this will cause and little appreciation of what the results… the unintended consequences of forcing children to examine the sexual experimentations of their elders… MUST bring about.
First graders will be forced to confront the bedroom behavior of a minority of our society by rule of law.
Textbooks and teachers will be required to promote the erotic eccentricites of homosexuals to kids who should be learning to read and write and calculate, not be drawn into a social sexual experiment.
Kids should not be thinking about fisting and mutual cunnilingus at recess.
This legaloid foolishness lead there, and worse.
profitsbeard on August 4, 2010 at 8:37 PM
And our society goes even further into the sewer.
Rose on August 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Well, this is all fine and dandy. What I want to know is when I get to have more than one wife?
Based on AP’s reasoning, all I need to do is to show polling that demonstrates opposition to polygamy dropping down to 53% and the Courts should decide that having more than one spouse is hunky-dory.
And based on the Judge’s reasoning, who is to say that marriage is strictly limited to just between two people? Why not between 4 people. How about 6?
Its amazing what people like the Judge and AP can rationalize. Afterall, having any sort of standards in society is nothing more an hateful discrimination.
Right AP?
GT on August 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM
D’oh. Everybody beat me to it.
Beo on August 4, 2010 at 8:39 PM
I really don’t care about this gay marriage deal.
Gays should have equal rights.
therightwinger on August 4, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Obama got 53%, too. That was good enough for a win.
Emperor Norton on August 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
I think the Declaration of Independence is more like the appetizer and the Constitution is more like the main course. I think I may have read that in a book somewhere, but Emperor Obama and his Royal Court think their subjects have all eaten quite enough of all that already so it probably doesn’t make any difference anymore anyway so you should all probably just go about the only job you have left – paying taxes.
Cheshire Cat on August 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
MadisonConservative on August 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM
You know, I keep trying to steer you toward the Nuclear Argument, but you (and others) seem to avoid it.
BradSchwartze on August 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
You hate polygamists, don’t you.
.
GT on August 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Your rights don’t matter because according to MadCon’s reasoning your rights only matter if their as many peopel interested in polygamy as there are interested in gay marriage.
CWforFreedom on August 4, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Here’s hoping this ruling helps reduce the rampant promiscuity in the gay community, and perhaps even lead to the demise of the unnecessary and naggingly preachy gay characters on every TV show that have nothing to talk about except their gayness. Seriously. Can we move on now?
rightheaded on August 4, 2010 at 8:42 PM
They do already. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.
CWforFreedom on August 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Hear, hear
CWforFreedom on August 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM
You know, there was a time when 13 year olds in this country could get married. Based on the Judge’s arguments, isn’t the State age limitations also unconstitutional?
GT on August 4, 2010 at 8:45 PM
Emperors have imperial courts, not royal ones. Trust me on this one.
Emperor Norton on August 4, 2010 at 8:45 PM
O_o
Bishop on August 4, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Clearly, the people of California are racists and bigots. They wasted their time with Prop 8. The gay people realized you just need a gay judge, et, voila! you have proved that (a) the people are idiots who need a Gay Platonic Guardian, and (b) an institution thousands of years old has “no rational basis”.
The Imperial Judiciary lives!
GTR640 on August 4, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 11 Next »