David Boies: No Evidence Same-Sex Marriage Harms Anyone
While Ted Olson was talking to Fox News Sunday, his co-counsel David Boies was on Face The Nation debating the Proposition 8 ruling:
While Ted Olson was talking to Fox News Sunday, his co-counsel David Boies was on Face The Nation debating the Proposition 8 ruling:
well, since a lawyer said so I guess that settles it …
This dude is an idiot, Just like the Judge who made the ruling. nether understand discrimination or the constitution or the institution of marriage or what gay means.
fear and prejudice he says? I see just another intellectual poser using the Nazi, er progressive tactics of blame and hate.
Can we just get back to the easy and main fact that two guys or two girls getting married is stupid?
But I guess when you believe that all your rights come from a select few with the delusionary pseudo intellectual world view of recreated historical wants and demands for greater perversions and the acceptance of it.
Your gonna see what you want no matter who or what you look at.
Shorter GA:
Everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot. Even if that includes everyone on the planet. Also, Nazis!
The arguments of G.A. Phillips sound just as weak as those put forth by the defendants in this case…
http://theonebestway.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/thoughts-on-the-prop-8-ruling/
“Not only did they lack evidence in support of their argument, they lacked witnesses to present their lack of evidence.
It seems that in such a crucial case the opponents of same-sex marriage would surely have made their best case. It would be irrational to not put forth the best arguments available for their side. And so I believe they did–I believe they did the absolute best that could be done in arguing against same-sex marriage, and to a federal District Court judge it came out as, ‘We want to enforce a “private moral view”.’
The defendants of Prop 8 further damaged themselves with their own witnesses. They withdrew four of their expert witnesses after depositions, but before trial. But the plaintiffs in the case then placed into evidence the deposed testimony of two of those witnesses because it actually supported their case, rather than the plaintiffs’ case. And their main witness ended up testifying under cross-examination that:
1. Opposite-sex and same-sex marriages were functionally identical (even down to raisin children);
2. Children being raised by homosexuals would be better off if their adoptive parents were married;
3. That he had in fact written, and agrees with, the statement that ‘the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before.’
This is the defense of a law prohibiting same-sex marriage? The phrase ‘dog and pony show’ irresistibly comes to mind. But this is good news for supporters of same-sex marriage who, like me, arte worried about how this case will play out in the higher courts. Since the Governor–a named defendant–refused to make any defense of the law, and the Attorney General–also a named defendant–stipulated that the law was unconstitutional, any future defense of this case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or before the Supreme Court will presumably have to be by this same collection of folks who apparently got their legal education here. I’m far from ready to declare victory, but it’s good when one’s opponents are bumbling fools.
In fact the defendants themselves provided ample reason to agree with Judge Walker that they were trying to use the state to enforce a ‘private moral view’ (the Judge’s words). One, Hak-Shing William Tam, is the secretary for the ‘America Return to God Prayer Movement.’ As if that’s not a blatant enough demonstration that they are relying on religion, rather than law, the Judge notes that their website, ‘1man1woman.net,’ argued that ‘Proposition 8 will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands.’ As bad as falling into Satan’s hands would be, it’s indisputably not the government’s job to protect us from it. Justice Scalia might go for their logic, but how many other Supremes will be willing to openly say that enforcing religious morality is the duty of the state?”