Ted Olson (yeah that Ted Olson) goes to court on behalf of gay marriage

[Perky]

Ted Olson goes to court on behalf of gay marriage
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
05/26/09 9:59 PM EDT


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ted-Olson-goes-to--46137917.html

Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The suit argues that the state's marriage ban, upheld Tuesday by the California Supreme Court, violates the federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The complaint was filed Friday, and Olson and co-counsel David Boies -- who argued against Olson in the Bush v. Gore case -- will hold a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday to explain the case. The conference will feature the two same-sex couples on whose behalf Olson filed suit.

The suit also asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same-sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.

"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."

I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

Technically, the suit Olson has filed is against the governor, attorney general, and other officials of the state of California. Ultimately, Olson said, it's a question that will be decided in Washington, by the Supreme Court. "This is an issue that will get to the Supreme Court, and I think it could well be this case," he said.

[joeybee12]

1. I saw this...and it stunned me...

...maybe there's hope for some other people, too.

[blm]

3. the man is slimy clever and likely working within to sabotage the issue legally.

Does anyone believe Rove would join a progressive Dem campaign because he believed in progressive issues?

[Perky]

4. That would get him disbarred

[blm]

5. That doesn't happen to powerful Republicans. Look how Siegelman got jail and his case goes on and

those Republicans CAUGHT in felonious acts like phone jamming get their cases dropped.

Also...remember the overly aggressive prosecution of Ted Stevens by Bush's DOJ? You think that wasn't meant to sabotage case against Stevens so he could get off the hook and deter any future prosecutions and even investigations of similar acts by other Republican lawmakers?

[frazzled]

2. This is a perfect example to ponder when considering the Supreme Court nomination procedure

It is often difficult for those of us who are not lawyers to understand how judges or attorneys can apply or argue the law without respect to "political" considerations. The Constitution is clear, and Olson, otherwise a staunch conservative, seems to get this. (Or he has "life experience" that allows him to interpret due process and equal protection in this way--yo, empathy!)

It is why neither we nor the Republicans should probably go too far in trying to suss out Sotomayor's political or ideological predilections when looking at her prior rulings. It's about the law.

[insanity]

6. Not good news

This or even the near-future Court does not have the votes. I'd hate to see bad precedent made that justifies the continued devaluation of gay citizens.

That said, good on him for seeing the light in this one.

[Orangepeel]

7. I hope that they really believe they can win

and aren't just trying to be first in a way that's too early. From the perspective of a reasonable person, it is already too late, but I don't trust 5 members of the Supreme Court to be reasonable where ideology is concerned.

[ruggerson]

9. It has the votes

read Lawrence again.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. I don't agree that there is a sinister move here on Olson's part.

I'm not convinced yet.

[Solomon]

10. What don't people get about the fact that lawyers are hired guns?

Why do people think that lawyers have personal interests in their cases? I'm a lawyer, and I get sick of trying to explain to people, "why did he represent that rapist" or whatever. That's what a lawyer does. Represents people for pay. Olson is in it because the price is right.