San Francisco Chronicle: Gay rights advocates rip suit to undo Prop. 8

[marmar]

Gay rights advocates rip suit to undo Prop. 8
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, May 28, 2009


Gay rights advocates Wednesday blasted two veteran attorneys for filing a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, saying the move is premature and could be disastrous for the marriage movement.

While they knew of the objections, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies - who opposed each other during the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election case - filed the suit Friday in San Francisco on behalf of two same-sex couples who wanted to be married but were denied because of Prop. 8.

The suit claims the voter-approved measure, which the California Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday, denies same-sex couples the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It asks for a preliminary injunction against Prop. 8 until the case is decided.

Olson said he filed the case not only on behalf of his clients, who include Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, but on behalf of gay couples elsewhere who want to get married but can't.

"We can't tell them to wait, what, five years" for their state to approve same-sex marriage, he said, but acknowledged that it could take two years for his case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/27/MNDC17SB47.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

[Not Me]

1. HRC will have to hold another gala to discuss their plans

I support (through membership) HRC, Lambda Legal et al, but I am often at odds that they are not aggressive enough--they play it way too safe. Perhaps this is what is needed.

[zipplewrath]

2. Severe risk

The usual thinking is that the current USSC isn't going to consider marriage a "right" nor homosexuals a "protected class". Going the USSC right now and getting that precedent set, could ultimately mean having to get a constitutional amendment passed to "correct" it. Better to fight this at the ballot box, where one can live to fight again, than to go to the court and have a decision rendered that may never get changed.