Loading...
|| Marriage Equality ||
1 2 3 4 5 NEXT  Page 1 of 5

A (Federal) Case for Marriage

As an all-star legal team mounts an ambitious federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, the future of national marriage equality weighs heavily on its shoulders.


Chad Griffin, board president of the newly formed American Foundation for Equal Rights

Social movements are often made of strange bedfellows. Just ask Chad Griffin, the Los Angeles-based political consultant and an emerging gay rights activist.

At 36, Griffin is the main instigator behind a high-profile and contentious federal lawsuit to overturn California's Proposition 8. The suit was filed in May on behalf of a gay male couple in Burbank and a lesbian couple in Berkeley who were denied marriage licenses.

Griffin's stated goal -- to establish national marriage equality -- mirrors that of gay organizations that have laid the intensive groundwork through years of legal battles, political campaigns, and lobbying of state and federal regulatory agencies. But by attempting to step into federal court, Griffin departs from a long-standing state-by-state strategy for marriage rights. And he's doing so with a man he once regarded as his enemy.

In December 2000, as an unabashed Democratic Party partisan and veteran of the Clinton administration, Griffin sat appalled in Al Gore's living room as the U.S. Supreme Court issued its notorious ruling to end the recount of presidential election ballots in Florida, thus handing George W. Bush the keys to the White House.

A particular target of his indignation was Theodore B. Olson, perhaps the nation's most prominent conservative lawyer, who argued the Bush campaign's case before the nine justices. "Until very recently," Griffin says, "if you'd asked me to come up with a list of 10 people in the world who I don't want to meet, Ted Olson would have been on it."

But now, Olson is Griffin's close ally, as co-lead counsel on this Prop. 8 lawsuit along with David Boies, an equally prominent lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore on behalf of the Democrats. "I think it makes complete sense to allow, and in fact encourage, individuals who want to live in a stable, committed relationship. I don't know why we would stigmatize them," Olson tells The Advocate. "There is a category of individuals who believe marriage should only be between men and women, which is an outgrowth of their religious convictions: what they believe the Bible stands for, and the church stands for. I don't quite understand how that identifies itself as conservative."

On paper, Olson is an unlikely proponent of marriage equality. He served as President Bush's solicitor general from 2001 to 2004, argued before the Supreme Court in 1996 against the admission of female cadets to the Virginia Military Institute, and donated to the campaigns of antigay politicians like former U.S. senator Rick Santorum as recently as 2005. But Olson asserts he's also been advocating marriage rights for same-sex couples for at least 10 years, arguing -- as he is doing now in the lawsuit -- that sexual orientation should not be a bar to enjoying the equal protection and due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As such, he is proving to be significantly more progressive than President Barack Obama, whose administration in June launched a vigorous legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter. 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT  Page 1 of 5
Reader Comments
  • Name: Lee Garrow
    Date posted: 7/29/2009 1:32:00 AM
    Hometown: Lahaina, Hawaii

    Comment:

    I truly try to follow all the legal details involved in mounting a case to be presented before the US Supreme Court. I'm usually even able to extract all the overly emotional ideas that are often brought up in many of the media articles regarding marriage equality--- and would NEVER be admitted into any presentation to the Supreme Court Justices. But I do have a question that I can't ever find an answer to in any of the MANY articles I've read regarding presenting a case for marriage equality to the US Supreme Court..... If the Supreme Court DOES decide to hear the case, and then rules against marriage equality as being unconstitutional--- is that the end of it? Or is there a way to bring this issue to the US Supreme Court more than once?

  • Name: Vanoni Anthony
    Date posted: 7/28/2009 12:18:00 PM
    Hometown: San Francisco

    Comment:

    David Goodstein, (The owner of The Advocate), says he will oppose the campaign of Olsen/Boise if we go threw with it. He needs to shut the hell up and get out of the way. These men are obviously way more talented and competent!

  • Name: John Emr
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 8:32:00 PM
    Hometown: New York City

    Comment:

    The only arguments against marriage equality are based on superstitious beliefs. Plain and simple. People who are operating in reality based mindsets, are not against marriage equality or are bigots. There is just no logical justification to be against equality, only obstinate superstition.

  • Name: Man
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 7:44:00 PM
    Hometown: Phoenix

    Comment:

    As this article proves, full equality is NOT a DEM vs Repub issue; nor is it a liberal vs conservative issue. As Olson says, it is not a valid conservative issue at all. Simply put, it is a civil rights and human rights issue. I'm a veteran, and I and my partner want to be married in the USA with full equality, and when the time comes for both of us to have the right to be buried in a National Cemetary. For the sake of common decency, all Americans should stand up for the rights of all citizens.

  • Name: Kenny
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 1:22:00 PM
    Hometown: Fort Lauderdale

    Comment:

    070809 Would everyone please stop being as impatient as a dog in heat??? THE DEMCRATS AND SOME REPUBS CANNOT MAKE MARRIAGE THE MOST URGENT ISSUE WITH THE FRAUD AND BANKRUPTCY GOING ON...GET OVER IT WE ARE NOT THE TOP COMMUNITY AND WE STILL HAVEN'T RIOTED OR BURNED BUILDINGS DOWN SINCE 1970...WITHOUT PUTTING FEAR ON THEIR LIVES THEY WONT MOVE THEIR ASSES! I MARCHED IN THE VERY FIRST PRIDE MARCH, SO TAKE HEED OF WHAT MOM SAYS....

  • Name: James
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 1:42:00 AM
    Hometown: Hanford, CA

    Comment:

    @Brian: There is more to gain from fighting the DOMA. The repeal of the federal DOMA is a much more realistic goal and can be accomplished much sooner than forcing all 50 states to accept same-sex marriages. With DOMA repealed same-sex couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships will have the way cleared to claim the currently obstructed federal benefits of marriage.

  • Name: James
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 1:21:00 AM
    Hometown: Hanford, CA

    Comment:

    @FlexSF: It is not for a lower court to determine if a subsequent decision of the US Supreme Court alters the precedent of Baker which was set by the Supreme Court. ONLY the US Supreme Court may do that. Until then all lower courts remain bound by Baker. Yes, it only applies to the issues decided in Baker, and the current case is claiming a violation of equal protection in the 14th Amendment just as in Baker v Nelson. That is the backbone of the argument that brings the issue into a federal courtroom. Olsen knows this. It would make no sense for him to concede the point.

  • Name: James
    Date posted: 7/7/2009 1:21:00 AM
    Hometown: Hanford, Ca

    Comment:

    continued..... Judge Walker has already acknowledged that the matter will not be decided in his court, as he knows he is obligated to dismiss the case. His only intent is to establish a record in federal court as there currently is none on the issue. This way as the case proceeds through the 9th Circuit and on to the Supreme Court there will be something of substance to work from. As each court dismisses then it will appeal further up, eventually reaching the USSC. They then can either dismiss, simply upholding the established Baker precedent which simply states there is no federal issue, or they may hear the case. If they hear the case then it can still go either way. Whatever happens, don't expect any decisions to be made until at least 2015 or so.

  • Name: Brian
    Date posted: 7/6/2009 9:34:00 PM
    Hometown: Anaheim

    Comment:

    I sure don't know the legal issues but at least it gives me and others some hope. We have been basically abandoned by the democratic party, without the courts, we might as well just give up.

  • Name: FlexSF
    Date posted: 7/6/2009 8:26:00 PM
    Hometown: San Francisco

    Comment:

    James, I'm not an attorney, but posess a copy of Ted Olson's response to the claims brought forth by the proponents of proposition 8 that you seem to be espousing. It is pasted below: "23 24 25 26 Even if Baker had not been conclusively undermined by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Romer and Lawrence (see Doc # 7 at 16 n.6), it still would not be binding on this Court because the Supreme Court's summary dismissals have controlling force only "on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided" by the Supreme Court. Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam) (emphasis added)." Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for a preliminary injunction. Page 3, paragraph 1. PACER account with the Federal Court Northern California District.



More Online Only
  • Film Video Content Flag Awards Shows Gone Gay

    From Rob Lowe singing with Snow White to Madonna and Britney Swapping spit, Adam Lambert's racy AMA performance reminded us of some of the great, gay moments in awards show history.

  • DVDs Hot Sheet: Rihanna, New Moon

    Whether you spend your time jamming to Rihanna's Chris Brown kiss-off "Russian Roulette," in theaters with those lusty male vampires- or curled up on the couch with Scarlett O'Hara, it's a packed week in entertainment.

  • Art The Kids Are All Right

    Photographer Jeffrey Kilmer has dedicated the last seven years to capturing the awkwardness, rebellion, and personal style of young men across the country and around the world. His book, 23% PURE, is a collection of hot guys, far and wide.

  • Film Teen Spirit

    While Native American cultures have long honored people of integrated genders, a new documentary looks at a shocking hate crime against a two-gendered Colorado teenager.

  • Politicians L.A. Confidential

    What's it like to be 33, gay, and one of the most powerful people in America's second-largest city? Stressful, says Matt Szabo, the new deputy chief of staff to Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

  • Commentary Love Bites for Twilight's Gay Fans

     

    Gay fanpires are sure to flock to New Moon, but with questions lingering about author Stephanie Meyer and the cash she gives to the Mormon Church, Mike Albo wonders if we'd be better off tying a clove of garlic around our necks.


  • Youth Church Opens Doors for Homeless Gay Teens

    A church-turned-shelter for homeless youth in Queens, New York is a far cry from sleeping on the streets after a $200,000 renovation and a partnership with the Ali Forney Center for LGBT youth.

  • Music France's Latest Export

    He's opened for Britney and Katy Perry, kept Dita Von Teese company in the front row at Paris Fashion Week, and gets name-checked on Twitter by Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and Sarah Silverman. So who the hell is Sliimy, anyway?

  • Marriage Equality Triumph in the Tar Heel State

    The loss of marriage equality in Maine was a major blow on Election Night, but down the coast in North Carolina there was an LGBT victory. Pam Spaulding talks to Chapel Hill's mayor-elect, Mark Kleinschmidt.

  • Theater Video Content Flag Puppet Masters

    When performance-art drag diva Joey Arias combines forces with master puppeteer Basil Twist, anything — no, seriously, anything — can happen.

  • News Softball With Oprah and Palin

     

    Dave White recaps as Oprah plays nice with Palin in her exclusive, personality-rehabbing interview. Topics include Katie Couric ("badgering"), Levi Johnston ("Ricky Hollywood"), and step class ("gee, it's fun").

  • News View From Washington: Frank Tells

    This week Congressman Barney Frank laid out a plan and a timetable for repealing "don't ask, don't tell..." and a reminder that he's been saying it would happen in 2010 from the beginning.

Most Popular Stories

1033/34 COVER X135 | ADVOCATE.COM