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: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Heh.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Just be honest blink. Try making your argument in a more direct fashion. It’s been made many times. First gay marriage, and then the slippery slope to kiddie sex, marriage with animals, and on and on. You’re not that clever, but you are very transparent.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
the point is that if homosexual sex is a protected RIGHT, then why isn’t any other kind of sex?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM
True enough. I’d chase so much as a 17 year old away from my 14 year old child, but that’s me.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Then why don’t we allow children to drive? Drink Alcohol? Vote in Public Elections?
Puberty is already a recognized legal standard. It is also a scientific standard.
Are you going to argue that human growth plays no role in decisions made by legislatures and the judiciary? Then please explain why driving, the right to vote, smoking, drinking, and the RKBA doesn’t kick in until after puberty?
Children are gullible as hell and you think they can give consent?
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Consent, dingleberry.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Any one of our other resident religious zealots makes the lame and tired slippery slope, strawman argument. Have you read the opinion? Do you actually understand the EP clause? Where did you go to law school?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM
This is about marriage and the legal protections and benefits bestowed to those who enter into it, not sex.
You’re just bigoted against those who have younger tastes. Racist.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
You’re assuming he passed grammar school. Plenty of evidence to the contrary.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Great job ruining your credibility.
More than 40 states, The District of Columbia, several territories, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice all have or had sodomy laws.
So now what’s your argument?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
what BS…the entire basis of this argument is that homosexual sex is just as legitimate as any other…
so why is gay sex a protected RIGHT…and polygamy not?
and why not pedophilia?
these, like homosexuality, are just a lifestyle choice…
and if you think its genetic, then those forms of sexual expression are just as genetic as homosexuality.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM
So when are you going to come clean on your agenda here blink?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:02 PM
the age of consent, like any other law, is whatever our judges say it is…dumbass
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:02 PM
I sometimes find it interesting that so many 40s-60s-era starlets married for the first time around 14-16 years old, sometimes to much older men. Back then it seems that was either a legal way to run away from home or the thing to do with an unexpected pregnancy. Most such couples later divorced, but it certainly wasn’t unusual for a woman to marry so young, or to marry a much older man.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM
your mistake is thinking he ever had any….
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Most of which were repealed in the 70s, not long after the medical community no longer classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Hm. Wonder if that’s a coincidence?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Read the damn opinion! Especially the factual basis sections. Spend some time educating yourself so you can think beyond your dogma riddled brain.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Circular logic.
You claim that a law restricted two consenting individuals from engaging in sodomy is wrong because they are consenting, yet a law restricting the consent of two individuals from engaging in the SAME ACT is wrong simply because it’s the law.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM
What does the bolded part tell you?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:05 PM
You’re absolutely wrong. Age of consent is what a particular legislative body says it is dipshit.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:06 PM
I mean, we know you’re racist and sexist. I wouldn’t put anything else past you.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:06 PM
What about having consensual sex with a 17 year old in Maine? Is that a violation of the 17 year old’s body?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM
I never said it was a good idea, just not an uncommon practice. And starlets were apparently much more likely to divorce in the 50s and 60s than other girls.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM
I’ve been nothing but direct here and in past threads on Hot Air.
Why don’t you try making an argument?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM
What’s yours?
That overturning Prop 8 has something to do with child rape laws?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM
You tell me.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Just because something wasn’t an uncommon practice didn’t mean it was a good thing. I’d also note that I’m not necessarily speaking against advanced difference in age. My father is eight years older than my mother, but they met when she was in her mid-20s.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
why should I read the opinion of a left-wing wacko judge? it comes down to the RULING CLASS doing what they want.
after all whats the votes of millions of SERFS compared to one judge?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Of course not. Are you going to argue that human growth is the same for everyone at every chronological age?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
The fact that you see no difference between adults having sex with each other, and adults having sex with kids, does nothing to turn down the creepy dial, which you cranked to 11 a while ago.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM
you are unable to shroud your stupidty, racism and fascism.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM
You are stupidly bold to claim that consent is the only difference when you’ve lost the argument about the definition of consent.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM
right, the judges are SO deferential to the will of the people….duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Yea. You got that argument down pretty well.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Exactly…see my posts above. Guy thinks he’s being clever. He’s clearly some sort of religious zealot who thinks this decision means we’re on our way to marriage to animals and the overturning of chid rape laws. He’s intellectually dishonest.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM
I’m not the one distinguishing women as different based on the color of their skin, Rev. Wright.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM
You are boldly stupid to claim that I said that consent is the only difference.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Oh, so if some states started reforming their age of consent laws, then you would support judges demanding that age of consent laws be reformed for all states?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Cite a case where a judge overturned an age of consent law.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Gee. You edited out the fact that most of those laws were repealed shortly after the medical community stopped referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder. What a shocker that you censor out facts that torpedo your arguments.
And you’re still complaining about bigotry against kid touchers. Jumpin’ f**kin’ Jesus.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Exactly.
In other words, MadCon and Good Lts’ definition of right and wrong with respect to statutory rape is whatever a particular legislative body says it is.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:17 PM
I know this hard for someone who has never had a woman..but they do have different skin color…they’re not all lily white like you are…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Dude, so do you really want to move your argument that the difference between sodomy laws and age of consent laws is loose referrals by the medical community? Let me know if you do.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:19 PM
don’t have to….doesn’t this case tell you anything at all??
guess not, cause you’re a dumbass, obviously.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Crazy I know to assume that somebody has read an opinion prior to commenting on it. Do you know anything about Judge Walker? The Judge Walker appointed by Reagan/Bush 41. Far from a “left wing whacko judge” brotha. Did you know that one of the most well-respected conservative (and, he’s very conservative) lawyers in the country represents the plaintiffs in this case? This, in fact, was a conservative decision. Not a fundamentalist Christian decision, I’ll grant you, but conservative at its core.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM
You idiot. Your changes were based on arbitrary definitions made by different legislative bodies.
Why have you refused to think about this issue for more than 90 seconds?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM
The DSM is not what I would call a “loose referral.”
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM
…or that raping children is wrong MORALLY AND LEGALLY, and it just happens that I agree with it being penalized severely and stigmatized socially. As does that bigot MadCon.
Because it’s CHILD FREAKING RAPE. It has nothing whatever to do with homosexual marriage.
Un. Believable.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM
So why are you making inappropriate jokes about me regarding my position about my legal arguments?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Why have you refused to stop advocating the elimination of age of consent laws?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM
this is laughable. seriously laughable. throw the 10th amendment out the window…ignore the will of the people, what do they know compared to a gay federal judge???
oh yeah thats progessive conservatism…right
moronic.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Not true. Historically, many laws have been “morally wrong”. Sometimes there’s a difference between a particular act being “illegal” and “morally wrong”. You’re familiar with the old Jim Crow laws I assume?
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM
reagan/bush 41??? what is that???
it was BUSH 41…duhhhhhhh don’t throw Reagan in with that moron..
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Everyone, everyone, everyone can see through your hyperbole and understands that what is and isn’t statutory rape is defined by age of consent laws.
Everyone, everyone, everyone will know you’re an idiot if you’re only argument against age of consent law reforms is “Because it’s CHILD FREAKING RAPE.”
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Dance some more. Decades ago, states got rid of laws against homosexuality shortly after homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder. Lawrence vs. Texas was nothing more than cleanup. No such process has occurred regarding pedophilia. The former involves consenting adults. The latter involves adults having sex with children. You’re comparing apples and cruise ships.
You, like the rest of the tiny nut faction that makes the rest of the gay marriage opponents look bad, desperately want to make homosexuals out to be as bad as pedophiles because you hate them. Keep on truckin’.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Walk into a bar or restaurant, and say “there shouldn’t be any laws against children, and ‘it’s child rape’ isn’t a valid argument”.
Then we don’t have to worry about you posting here anymore.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Why have you spent more than 90 seconds telling people not to be bigoted against kid touchers?
Oh, it’s clear why.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM
you never heard of the new ‘safe schools’ czar??
moron.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Hey jackass, Reagan nominated Judge Walker, but was blocked in the Senate by the libs. He wasn’t pushed through until after Bush 41 came into office (and it took Strom Thurmond to get it done). You are truly an ignorant buffoon.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM
No, idiot.
Sodomy isn’t illegal, and for good reason. Sodomy WITH A CHILD is, as is any sexual contact – again, for good reason. Sodomy should never have been made illegal in the first place. Child rape should have. And that’s the way the law has moved.
That’s a good thing.
And since we’re talking about adults in the case of Prop 8 and not children, and since we’re talking about consensual relationships between adults and not sexual domination by older men over young girls, your torturous detour into the magical world of kiddie diddling and the moral struggles of those who would like to do more of it if only it were more legal is irrelevant, idiotic and unconvincing.
Got it?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Exactly. Guy thinks he’s clever.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Thank you!
So you agree that it’s ok to question whether particular acts are illegal and/or morally wrong.
Now, if someone claims that a particular act is illegal or morally wrong, then such act can’t logically be defending simply by claiming that it’s the law.
That’s what’s happening here. I’m challenging the legality/morality of the age used in age of consent laws. Nobody has defending the ages that are used. Instead, they continue to quote the law and make inappropriate jokes about me.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM
We have, but I don’t see what he has to do with Prop 8 or gay marriage.
Is it that he’s gay, and therefore, all gays are perverts who want to turn your children gay and collapse society because they get off on it or something?
Van Jones was straight. Lunacy knows no sexual orientation.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Baring diseases it generally is close enough to inform Legislatures and Judges to write laws.
Heck, Algeria, Botswana, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mozambique, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tunisia, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe have consent at 16 or higher. And this is just in Africa.
Holger on August 5, 2010 at 3:32 PM
so are you a liar, or just a dumbass or both? shithead
he’s still a liberal jackass, just like you are.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:32 PM
By saying that everyone who doesn’t agree with you about them is a bigot.
Nice try.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Seriously, I realize that you make a fool of yourself every time you post here, but you really should read the decision prior to playing amateur constitutional lawyer. Also, peruse the 14th amendment, and BTW, the 10th amendment doesn’t mean what you think it means.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM
So if the medical community began to piecemeal admit that individuals that have developed mentally, emotionally, and physically aren’t at risk of having consensual sex with older individuals, then you would agree that age of consent laws should be reformed?
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Neither, cretin.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:34 PM
he’s the guy that couldn’t report gay sex with an underage student….
of course no one in the gay movement is pushing child sex….
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/04/explosive-the-not-safe-for-school-reading-list-of-the-safe-schools-czar/
got any more lies for us?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM
When that happens, you let me know. I’ll be sure and tell you.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM
I defended my age-of-consent law. It’s great. It’s peaches. And I violated it when I was younger, by subterfuge and trickery. If you’re not savvy enough to get away with it, you don’t have the maturity to be doing it in the first place. ;-)
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Warren Jeffs pushed child sex. Does that make all Christians kid touchers?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Look, I realize that you’re not very bright, so I’ll try to keep it simple. Walker was originally nominated by Reagan. The Dems in the Senate blocked him. Bush 41 re-nominated the guy, and with Strom Thurmond strong armed him through. Got it? BTW, this was a conservative decision despite what your bigoted form of Christianity says.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM
You’ve only provided bigoted arguments without a hint of shame.
And your inappropriate jokes about me scream bigot. Certainly you don’t deny this.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM
then reagan was an ass to nominate him…but he also gave us kennedy and sandra day oconnor.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM
what BS. what about the 10th amendment?? the will of the people?
this is a purely liberal ruling. no wonder you are for it.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:38 PM
I’ll let you know right now. I doubt it will change your bigoted opinion about this.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:39 PM
You called people liars who weren’t. Not that that’s anything new for you. Apologize.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Says the guy who has spent the last few hours trying to make homosexuals out to be the same as pedophiles. Try again.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:39 PM
I don’t see homosexuals as equivalent to pedophiles, so try again.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:40 PM
yeah he doesn’t have an agenda….
and reagan really was an idiot to nominate this piece of work…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
as soon you apologize for all the lies you’ve spread about me.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
It may be sacrilege, but here’s what I think of Reagan: He was kind of liberal, and appointed some pretty liberal judges by our millenial understanding of the term. What he did have was the right compass pointing him away from the march of statism. It’s easy to confuse anti-statism with conservatism, and I think he was less conservative than he is remembered.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Ok, everyone understands the limitations of your argument.
You see the definition of CHILD as binary based on age of consent laws of all the different states.
If you aren’t capable of looking at this at a higher level of sophistication then you’ve been eliminated from the argument.
At least MadCon morphed his argument when he realized he was losing.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
You are? Never would have guessed, and am still wondering what this has to do with Prop 8.
That’s becuase nobody (until now) is so stupid as to suggest that they should be changed becuase most people agreed when the laws were enacted (and continue to agree) that kids between the ages of 16 and 18 are generally the baseline for young adulthood. Not 12 year olds.
And it’s not just a slim majority. It’s a vast, overwhelming majority. The minority? Kiddie diddlers and wanna-be kiddie diddlers.
Now why would anybody make a joke about you, considering your first blockquote above?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
he’s a mormon dumbass.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Done. As I’ve spread no lies, my 0 apologies have been made.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
and he’s not the safe schools czar now is he???
again dumbass.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Huh? No amendment “trumps” any other. They have to be read and synthesized together.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Is there a legal definition of “child?” Does it differ from that of an “adult?”
Why is there a difference?
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
and my zero apologies follow
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
…and Mormons don’t worship Christ?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:46 PM
He’s a FUNDAMENTALIST Mormon.
Good Lt on August 5, 2010 at 3:46 PM
what BS.
judicial review isn’t in the constitution…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:46 PM
You called dakine a liar about Walker’s nomination, and were proven wrong. Apologize.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
I don’t care if you compare the two or not.
I’m concerned that you bigotedly define pedophile as to include anyone that has the desire to have consensual sex with an individual that happens to have a chronological age which is less than the chronological age of consent in that state.
Can you just admit your bigotry, and we can move on.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
you’re a fundamental idiot.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
make me
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next »