Print
E-mail
Bush Solicitor General Backs Challenge To Prop. 8
Olson Files Federal Lawsuit Supporting Gay Marriage
By JOE MURRAY, The Bulletin
Former President George W. Bush’s first Solicitor General has irked fellow conservatives by filing a lawsuit asking a federal judge to look at the enforcement of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The lawsuit claims a federal right for gay couples to marry.
Theodore Olson, the attorney who argued Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of Mr. Bush, joined his former adversary in filing a case he hopes will take him back to the High Court. In filing a case on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, Mr. Olson is attempting to have the federal court interpret the U.S. Constitution as guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to marry.
Such a decision would trump any state decision concerning the issue.
“This is a federal question,” Mr. Olson told The Associated Press. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.”
In the lawsuit Mr. Olson argues California is giving same-sex couples the “separate but equal institution of domestic partnerships.” By denying gays full marriage rights and recognition, the lawsuit concludes California has created a “second class” of citizens.
On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court rejected the arguments of gay rights groups that Prop. 8, an amendment to the California constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was defective. The court held Prop. 8 could stand, but also ruled the 18,000 same-sex couples that married before voters passed the amendment were valid.
Mr. Olson’s decision to buck the Republican Party on the issue has been met with great criticism from the right.
“It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate.”
The debate over gay rights has intensified over the past decade with public attitudes shifting in favor of expanding such rights. A poll released by Quinnipiac University last month found the public supporting gays in the military and gay adoption.
In terms of gay marriage, a slim majority of the people opposed such unions, but also opposed federal legislation denying same-sex couples marriage-like rights. A majority did support civil unions.
As public opinion turns, pressure has been mounting inside the Republican Party to relax opposition to gay rights. Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s former presidential campaign chairman, urged the party to abandon its opposition, as did Mr. McCain’s daughter Meghan. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., has also expressed no opposition to same-sex marriage.
The defection of Mr. Olson from the traditional marriage camp is another sign conservatives are experiencing problems maintaining a coalition to stop the spread of same-sex marriage.
Speaking of his odd-couple pairing with David Boies, Mr. Olson explained, “We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans.”
He also told The Advocate, a gay publication, “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals.
“The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”
Mr. Olson has found an unlikely group of allies in filing the case, as gay rights advocates, traditionally critical of the Bush administration, used Mr. Olson’s lawsuit to blast President Barack Obama.
“Ted (sic) Olson is now better on gay marriage than our president — than most of our party ... At what point will President Obama realize that the year is 2009 and not 1993?” said gay rights advocate John Aravois.
“Gay marriage is bursting across the land and the American people have shrugged. They just don’t care. So why does our president? Why do he and his advisers seem to be treating gay people and their issues as, at best, an embarrassing inconvenience?”
Mr. Olson, however, has fallen out of favor with some Republicans.
Conservatives recognize the negative impact Mr. Olson’s defection could have on their cause, especially as New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire could legalize gay marriage this year. Mr. Perkins hinted the California case might be victorious, but would not silence the debate.
“The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution,” Mr. Perkins said.
Mr. Olson’s support of gay marriage is causing some conservatives to forget his role in advancing Republican issues. Mr. Perkins went as far as to subtly lump Mr. Olson, the man whose legal prowess secured Mr. Bush his victory in 2000, with homosexual activists attempting to redefine U.S. culture.
“It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution,” Mr. Perkins said.
“This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all.”
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Theodore Olson, the attorney who argued Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of Mr. Bush, joined his former adversary in filing a case he hopes will take him back to the High Court. In filing a case on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, Mr. Olson is attempting to have the federal court interpret the U.S. Constitution as guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to marry.
Such a decision would trump any state decision concerning the issue.
“This is a federal question,” Mr. Olson told The Associated Press. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.”
In the lawsuit Mr. Olson argues California is giving same-sex couples the “separate but equal institution of domestic partnerships.” By denying gays full marriage rights and recognition, the lawsuit concludes California has created a “second class” of citizens.
On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court rejected the arguments of gay rights groups that Prop. 8, an amendment to the California constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was defective. The court held Prop. 8 could stand, but also ruled the 18,000 same-sex couples that married before voters passed the amendment were valid.
Mr. Olson’s decision to buck the Republican Party on the issue has been met with great criticism from the right.
“It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate.”
The debate over gay rights has intensified over the past decade with public attitudes shifting in favor of expanding such rights. A poll released by Quinnipiac University last month found the public supporting gays in the military and gay adoption.
In terms of gay marriage, a slim majority of the people opposed such unions, but also opposed federal legislation denying same-sex couples marriage-like rights. A majority did support civil unions.
As public opinion turns, pressure has been mounting inside the Republican Party to relax opposition to gay rights. Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s former presidential campaign chairman, urged the party to abandon its opposition, as did Mr. McCain’s daughter Meghan. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., has also expressed no opposition to same-sex marriage.
The defection of Mr. Olson from the traditional marriage camp is another sign conservatives are experiencing problems maintaining a coalition to stop the spread of same-sex marriage.
Speaking of his odd-couple pairing with David Boies, Mr. Olson explained, “We wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans.”
He also told The Advocate, a gay publication, “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals.
“The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”
Mr. Olson has found an unlikely group of allies in filing the case, as gay rights advocates, traditionally critical of the Bush administration, used Mr. Olson’s lawsuit to blast President Barack Obama.
“Ted (sic) Olson is now better on gay marriage than our president — than most of our party ... At what point will President Obama realize that the year is 2009 and not 1993?” said gay rights advocate John Aravois.
“Gay marriage is bursting across the land and the American people have shrugged. They just don’t care. So why does our president? Why do he and his advisers seem to be treating gay people and their issues as, at best, an embarrassing inconvenience?”
Mr. Olson, however, has fallen out of favor with some Republicans.
Conservatives recognize the negative impact Mr. Olson’s defection could have on their cause, especially as New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire could legalize gay marriage this year. Mr. Perkins hinted the California case might be victorious, but would not silence the debate.
“The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution,” Mr. Perkins said.
Mr. Olson’s support of gay marriage is causing some conservatives to forget his role in advancing Republican issues. Mr. Perkins went as far as to subtly lump Mr. Olson, the man whose legal prowess secured Mr. Bush his victory in 2000, with homosexual activists attempting to redefine U.S. culture.
“It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution,” Mr. Perkins said.
“This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all.”
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Israeli Government Ministers: Palestinians Want State On Israel’s Ruins | State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Thomas T wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:55 AM:
Not that I agree with the feeling that these decisions should necessarily be determined solely by voters. In the case of "medicinal" marijuana, the right decision was made, to challenge a pointless & expensive law. Proposition 8, on teh other hand, unfarily limits the rights of citizens, and is an absolute step backward. "