Celebrated attorney David Boies (he led Gore's Florida recount legal team in 2000) explains in the Wall Street Journal why he and Ted Olson (who led Bush's recount effort) have now come together and brought a lawsuit asking the courts to declare unconstitutional California's Prop. 8, which limits marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Writes Boies:
"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."
Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is part of an effort to strike down laws that treat gays unequally, as Mother Jones reports. Well, maybe the case is mistimed and misdirected. But it also seems clear that these groups are really upset over (1) not calling all the shots here (as this Washington Blade story suggests), and (2) the fact that a conservative (albeit a limited government one) is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon. Just how, they must be wondering, could that possibly aid the advancement of the greater progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party?
11 Comments for “The Curious Case of Boies and Olson”
posted by mgh on
do you have any evidence for this baseless assertion about being upset that “a conserviative … is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon”? Have you heard anything from the LGBT groups to indicate that their objections to this case are a matter of doubting that Ted Olson is anything other than completely qualified? Even your article cites only “conspiracy theorists on the Web” to support such an assertion.
If you want to talk about a knee-jerk reaction, then how about your knee-jerk dismissal of the legitimate criticisms that have been levied against this lawsuit? If you can name me one case in which the U.S. Supreme Court has ever overturned laws currently in effect in 40+ states — and, at that, laws that are currently one of the hot-button issues of the national dialogue — then I’ll support this lawsuit. But the truth is, one doesn’t seem to exist.
Make no mistake: this lawsuit has the potential to be catastrophic. Shouldn’t be give a modicum of trust to the groups that have been fighting for our rights before when they say that they think it’s nowhere near time?
posted by avee on
do you have any evidence for this baseless assertion about being upset that “a conserviative … is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon”?
Just read the Mother Jones article.
posted by William on
The article is quite unfair when it states, “Olson was put on the spot about his association with conservative organizations, and he insisted that he had never been a part of any organization that he considered anti-gay, which is sort of disingenuous considering that he worked for both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were both anti-gay in their policies”. Personally, I would see it as a reason not to get involved with Republican politics, with their general affiliation with religious fundamentalists, but one can’t tar everyone who found conservative issues more important overall.
He does seem genuine to me, that he is generally conservative but because of gay friends of his, feels a marriage ban is discriminatory. Many conservatives can have a moment like that of Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, with reference to gay people. Early in the book, he talked of the surplus population, but felt ashamed when his words were repeated to him after he saw who they were. But, however noble Olsen’s intentions, I do think this a futile exercise.
posted by BobN on
Oh, yes, I’m quite certain that the only reason these gay-rights organizations oppose this suit is because there’s an icky Republican involved. shudder Couldn’t have anything to do with upsetting a long-running plan. Nope.
posted by Larry on
Stephen Miller cites two articles to support his perceptions of the motives of LGBT groups in opposing the lawsuit. The problem is, neither article says what he claims they do. The Mother Jones article doesn’t say that LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is leading the effort. It mentions two groups, the ACLU and Lambda Legal, and says that they oppose the lawsuit largely because they think that it will fail and thus do serious harm. The article says nothing about those groups being upset because Olson is a conservative. The article does mention conspiracy theorists on the web who think Olson might be a saboteur, but it says nothing to conflate them with the LGBT groups mentioned earlier, and Stephen’s contention that the article supports the notion that LGBT groups are upset that a conservative is leading the effort is unwarranted. Likewise, a fair reading of the Washington Blade article does not support the contention that it suggests that LGBT groups oppose the lawsuit because they are “not calling all the shots”. Stephen is projecting his own hatred of the “progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party” into his reading of those articles, and finding support for his own biases that the articles do not actually contain.
posted by mgh on
…never mind, of course, the fact that conservatives aren’t supposed to support this form of judicial “activism.” whatever happened to slow, steady change, winning hearts and minds?
posted by rado on
Funny thing that some of our more "progressive" readers are shocked, shocked, that a blogger is expressing his opinion/interpretation of the left’s motives. Miller provides credible evidence (links to articles) that arguably support his views, at least as debating points. But our oh so "liberal" commenters want to hold him to some standard-of-proof that clearly has no bearing on their favorite bloggers and pundits (e.g., Daily Kos, John Stewart), from whom they take their talking points.
One is left with the distinct impression that the left is simply appalled that it should have to confront ideas that break from their party line.
posted by Larry on
Rado, I am not shocked that Miller is expressing his own opinion/interpretation of the left’s motives. But he loses credibility when he cites articles that don’t actually say anything that supports that opinion. I challenge you, and I challenge Miller to cite a passage from the Mother Jones article that supports the contention that LGBT groups do not support the lawsuit because Olson is a conservative, and a passage from the Washington Blade article that supports the contention that LGBT groups oppose the lawsuit because they are not “calling all the shots”.
posted by Rado on
Larry, you are being disingenuous, and you know it. The Mother Jones piece is dripping with venom toward Olson. Why? The guy is trying to do something positive to advance gay rights, but they portray him as part of the vast anti-gay conspiracy.
As for the Blade piece, it’s clear that the LGBT groups are upset that they are not leading this effort. Now really, is Miller’s suggestion about their motives in any way beyond a reasonable interpretation? Clearly not, if you know anything about human nature.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Instead of telling us this or that is clear, why not quote an explicit statement that supports Stephen’s speculation about people’s motives? Not that a single example would justify tarring everyone to Stephen’s left, but it would at least be better sourcing than we have now. I think the criticisms of that case from a strategic viewpoint have been sincere. But whatever one thinks of that, I think Olson’s involvement is a beautiful move. Granted, a lot of the Washington leftists do not talk to me because they need a “safe space,” which is to say an ideological echo chamber, so it’s entirely possible that there is a seething resentment of Mr. Olson to which I’m not privy.
Personally, I think of Olson as a decent guy. His own marriage ended on 9/11; his wife was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. The pain of being separated most of the time from my partner (who is a foreign national) is nothing compared with the pain of that final phone call and the desolation that must have followed. That the man can overcome his own tragedy to fight for others’ marriages is a truly decent thing for which he gets every bit of credit from me.
posted by Mick RWC on
A common mistake is thinking marriage is a contract. It is not a contract but a covenant. You can’t get out for non-performance (jokes aside.) It’s a blood covenant; until death do us part. In the natural form, when a marriage between two virgins is consummated, there is an issue of blood to ratify the blood covenant.
Homosexuals cannot fulfil this natural blood letting in the natural way any more than they can naturally reproduce. If they choose to enter into a gay relationship, they forgo natural reproduction. They also forgo the natural capacity to consummate a blood covenant. Therefore they cannot be married any more than they can reproduce.
Homosexuals play the inequality card saying that opponents to gay marriage claim marriage is a superior institution that should not be kept from them. Being superior is not the question. Being reserved for a certain type is. Blokes do not have the right to use the female toilets. It?s reserved for women. By choosing to enter into a homosexual relationship, you have forgone the natural capacity to reproduce and to consummate a marriage. Therefore it is not available to you.
2 things: 1; you cannot naturally achieve these two dimensions of marriage and 2; that was your choice.