Streams

David Boies on Prop 8

Thursday, July 11, 2013

David Boies, the co-lead counsel—along with Ted Olson—in the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, discusess last month’s Supreme Court decision, which allows same-sex marriages to resume in the Golden State. David Boies is also the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Guests:

David Boies,

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [8]

fuva from harlemworld

Also, Truth & Beauty, what you think is a hill may not be. It may be another road altogether.

Jul. 11 2013 01:57 PM
fuva from harlemworld

Truth & Beauty, it should end when, after deliberation, we -- the informed citzenry -- says it must end based on what's best for the country. Because a slope may exist does not mean one must fall down it. You currently walk down hills (1) with the ability to stop mid-way and (2) without rolling down them uncontrollably, correct?

Jul. 11 2013 01:56 PM
Truth & Beauty from Brooklyn

The issue is not so much one of discrimination as a re-evaluation of the entire concept of marriage. If the law is changed from "one man and one woman" to "two men" or "two women," who's say that we can't change the number, as well? And can we then change it from consenting adults to youngsters below the age of majority (18)? After all, in some cultures children attain majority at 12 and 13, so can they marry? Or what about those who choose just to become emancipated and marry? What will happen if some other country recognizes polygamy? Will we be forced to recognize that, as well, and provide benefits for all those people? There will come a day when three people come before the court and say that they each want to find happiness and love with the other two and why are they being discriminated against? Where does it end?

Meanwhile, more and more heterosexual couples are choosing not to marry.

It makes one wonder why marriage needs to be, and to be legislated, if people are just going to pair off willy-nilly.

Jul. 11 2013 12:51 PM
fuva from harlemworld

Martha said "we"? Relevant? Intentional?

Jul. 11 2013 12:44 PM
james andrea from Brick, nj

I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that he considers the DOMA case more important than the 2000 election "decision" by SCOTUS!

Jul. 11 2013 12:40 PM
h l

Martha Plimpton is annoying. Turning radio off.

Jul. 11 2013 12:35 PM
Ken from UWS

What about a federal benefit like Social Security, which is contingent on whether the marriage is considered valid in the state where the couple currently lives? For example, a gay couple married in New York that moves to Kansas before retirement.

Jul. 11 2013 12:18 PM
Tony from Canarsie

Your guest is a pleasant and intelligent change of pace from the usual shallow and sensationalist press coverage about the SCOTUS' decision.

Excellent job, Mr. Boies and colleagues!

Jul. 11 2013 12:17 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.