Streams

David Boies and Ted Olson Make the Case for Marriage Equality

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson tell the inside story of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on California’s Proposition 8. Boies and Olson argued against each other in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in 2000, but they joined forces after that battle to forge the unique legal argument that would pave the way for marriage equality. Their book Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equalitytells the story of the five-year struggle to win the right for gays to marry, from Proposition 8’s adoption by California voters in 2008 to its defeat before the highest court in the land in Hollingsworth v. Perry in 2013.

Guests:

David Boies, and Theodore Olson

Comments [14]

Dissenting View from Outside The Herd

[NOTE: The relevance of this post to the specific topic of same-sex marriage, if not immediately clear, will become so.]

As soon as a male identifies himself as "gay", he becomes subject to relentless indoctrination and conditioning to overcome the instinctive aversion to an anatomically and physiologically unsound, gruesome act that, more than any other factor, accounts for HIV rates among homosexually active males that are as high as forty-four times those of the general population (CDC).

This is thanks to the dominant "gay" and AIDS establishment as well as their many heterosexual enablers, all of whom have conflated the specific act of /anal penetration/ with the far broader categorization of male homosexuality. (On this very radio station, one can hear said act referred-to, euphemistically, as simply, "gay sex".) (And yet, in contrast to the egalitarian and highly safe phallus-on-phallus form of sex known as FROT, anal penetration is neither exclusively homosexual nor mutually-genital)

Also conflated with male homosexuality are the kinds of inordinate licentiousness, effeminacy, "gender-bending" (and the medical fraud of "transgender") and displays of public lewdness and indecency that have long been hallmarks of "Pride" events.

More than a few homosexuals reject such scourges, certainly.

But anyone who speaks-out against the aforementioned cancers is attacked viciously, met with scorn, contempt, ridicule and vitriol. Prime examples are Frot-movement founder Bill Weintraub ( man2manalliance.org ), Rob McGee (funfrotfacts.blogspot.com ) and any number of other men who are emphatically PRO-homoerotic and advocate a paradigm of fidelity, frot and masculinity. (sites contain graphic content)

We need to see vast numbers of homosexually-identified individuals come forth and distinguish themselves from the type of dangerous, depraved and pathological practices and traits enumerated above. Until then, any legitimizing of "gay marriage" only serves to sanction and further advance what is a massive breach of public health and decency; cultural and moral corrosion that is championed under an Orwellian banner of "progress", "enlightenment" and benevolence.

Furthermore, if the right of "marriage" is to in any way be tied to the rights of adoption, foster parenthood and/or surrogate parenthood, then there are a number of additional concerns that must be addressed. Perhaps chief among these are questions that are raised in the article, 'Homosexuality and the Church Crisis':
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_09homosexuality.html

(Note that rejection of the author's position with regard to the Church should not preclude acceptance of the /sourced/ evidence he presents for his argument, the one that is relevant here, that,
"there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse."

Alas, however, an open, honest and uncensored public discussion about these issues appears to no longer be possible.

Jun. 26 2014 04:44 AM
Dennis from Manhattan

The very premise of this segment description is flawed, and plays right into the authors' campaign to claim credit for something they don't deserve. Perry was far less of a "landmark ruling to pave the way for marriage equality" than Windsor. Perry was dismissed on standing -- it did nothing to advance marriage equality nationally. I am getting sick and tired of this PR offensive waged by Boies, Olson & Company to write themselves into history as the heroes of the marriage equality movement. The $6 million they made to argue the case doesn't seem to be enough profit for them.

Jun. 25 2014 01:33 PM
Joe from NYC

If I have correctly understood the argument of Mr. Boies and Mr. Olsen, their position, formally stated, is that the state may not discriminate on the basis of sex regarding who may enter into a legal marriage with all attending privileges and responsibilities: everyone has the right to marry whomever he or she chooses.

Logically, then, if the state may not discriminate by sex, can it still discriminate by quantity? Should there be any restriction on the number of individuals electing to enter into a single marriage relationship? Should polyamorous marriages be recognized as equal to binary marriages?

I understand that this may well be interpreted as a slippery-slope challenge, but I truly would like to hear from same sex marriage supporters A) whether they would be content to allow the definition of marriage to encompass unions of more than two people, or B) if not, then by what legal or constitutional logic they would make the distinction.

I am a supporter, without malice and with all the decency I can put forth, of what by now has become derisively known as traditional marriage, for reasons not particularly tethered to religious teachings. I grasp the legal argument of the two gentlemen, but I fail to see how they can logically stop where they do.

Jun. 25 2014 01:00 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

Moses married a Cushite so there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits "interracial" marriage. That was what the South called "miscegenation." In Jewish law, a Jew can only marry another Jew regardless of color. But as for American law, I don't know where marriage is discussed in the Constitution, one way or the other. I don't know why the government is in the marriage business at all. Civil unions, okay, but why "marriage?"

Jun. 25 2014 12:38 PM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

The irony here is that Mr. Boies fought for one constituency while supporting the criminal practices of “Herbal Life” which is ripping off another Democratic Party constituency-Hispanics.

Jun. 25 2014 12:33 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why temporal organizations such as the state should be "marrying" people? Other animals don't marry to have sex and babies, so why should our species? If people want to be together, let them be together. Who's stopping them? All they have to is make a contract assigning each other beneficiaries, etc.

As for how gay marriage can hurt others, it's all about adoption. Now gays will be able to compete with infertile customers to adopt babies. Competition for marketplace babies.

Jun. 25 2014 12:27 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why temporal organizations such as the state should be "marrying" people? Other animals don't marry to have sex and babies, so why should our species? If people want to be together, let them be together. Who's stopping them? All they have to is make a contract assigning each other beneficiaries, etc.

As for how gay marriage can hurt others, it's all about adoption. Now gays will be able to compete with infertile customers to adopt babies. Competition for marketplace babies.

Jun. 25 2014 12:27 PM
brian from Manhattan

Just during the course of this interview, a federal judge in Indiana overthrew that state's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional AND the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of a federal judge in Utah finding that the Utah ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Every week there is more.

Jun. 25 2014 12:25 PM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

Yes the fabulous David Boies. Who’s firm is representing “Herbal Life.” A corrupt pyramid scheme company ripping off Hispanics with fake health products. Feds are investigating them for all manner of criminal activities. The money must be good. Check out the NY Post for lots of details.

Jun. 25 2014 12:23 PM
gregb

what do they think about the collision of religious "rights" and marriage equality- e.g. would a restaurant be allowed to not cater to a gay marriage ceremony?

Jun. 25 2014 12:21 PM
Joe from UES

I was part of a lawsuit against DOMA. Our lawyer took our small marriage case and started grandstanding the whole thing. It seemed like he was working for himself and not us. I'm so glad you guys got there first.

Jun. 25 2014 12:19 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

I'm waiting for someone to make a case of any kind of marriage today! I don't get "marriage" anymore at all. For what purpose?
At any rate, where in the constitution is there the right to be married by the state? Who says there is a right to marriage for anybody? Marriage was for thousand of years a "sacrament," or religious oath made to the gods before the priests. WHen did marriage become a state function?

Jun. 25 2014 12:17 PM
khadija Boyd from Brooklyn

I doff my hat. Better yet, I'll kiss the ground you walk upon; do gratefully
khadija

Jun. 25 2014 12:11 PM
David

Why adult human beings involved in ANY voluntary actions with other adult human beings need the “permission” from a third group of adult human beings in order to be involved in any of those voluntary actions is beyond me.

Jun. 25 2014 11:11 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.