Just a Case of "Lawyerly Ego"?

Beware of Boies and Olson American queers. Speaking from Canada, where we had the same pissing contests between the establishment and those who wanted to speed up the timeline, you need everyone to work together. When you have an army of religious bigots intervening against you, you need an equally impressive army on your side. If Boies and Olson cared about queers, they'd've been there for the state fights. There only doing this because winning would get them in the history books and they don't want to share the glory. There are all kinds of egos and weird shit in the marriage battle, and it's normal for people to publicly state disagreement with others' strategies, but NOBODY has ever before tried to cut someone out of the action for the "crime" of disagreeing with them. This is the insanity of someone who doesn't have the community's interests at heart.

My experience with HRC and a friend's experience with Lamda tells me those groups are more interested in perpetuating their own organization than actually creating change. I stopped contributing years ago. I firmly believe their actions now are to interfere, not help.

I no longer want my money spent on luxury meals for politicians by HRC and LAMDA. Here in Texas a couple of weeks ago we had the Rainbow Lounge attack by the police. HRC & LAMDA have done NOTHING to help us - small local groups have been working the hardest. HRC and LAMDA have no incentive to end discrimination against gays - these organizations have well paid full time employees. If we really did achieve equality these people would be out of a job - this explains how they have managed to waste millions of dollars and achieve almost nothing. We need to focus on local groups WITHOUT paid employees.

It appears to me that Boies & Olson are te ones with the egos. NCLR, Lambda Legal, & the ACLU have a lot of experience arguing for same-sex marriage in the courts. Why would a couple of straight guys - Olson & Boies - not want their input??? Sounds fishy to me. And it makes me question Olson's & Boies's sincerity even more.

The "lawyerly egos" are being displayed by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and the National Center For Lesbian Rights! Not only did they not want to file a Federal case, some of them have never approved of same-gender marriage as a Gay Rights issue. Why do they really want to take control of this Federal litigation? I think the answer is obvious: they want to derail it! When I learned that the plaintiffs they want to add to the case were groups, not married couples, I knew they had sabotage in mind. After botching the Prop 8 challenge, these clowns had the nerve to tell California Gay couples to go get their Civil Rights at the ballot box. Some of us were dumb enough to take that as legitimate advice. Are we also dumb enough to see them as Constitutional law experts, rushing to save marriage equality from the supposed ineptness of Ted Olson and David Boies? Wake up, people! To paraphrase the late Michael Jackson, they don't really care about us!

sam-b. It is OBVIOUS that the US Supreme Court should affirm gay marriage. The issue here is WHY these "new" groups earlier said (look in the Advocate!) it is just too risky to even begin to risk an approach the OBAMA Supreme Court now (next few years). Why did they say that? They are well aware Obama will add 1 maybe 2 more judges. It seems they changed their minds overnite. Such abrupt change does not indicate a well-thought out legal strategy. (I personally believe the strategy of waiting for each state OK marriage is a loser. It IS time to fight: TO WIN.) michael-bruce: if Calif judge sought wider Calif input, then i stand corrected. but, i still say the more diffiuse the legal PRINCIPLES being argued here, the greater the likelihood of a bad outcome. Yes egos and "me toos" are a concern. I agree. That's why Lambda Legal and ACLU etc had best come clean with their legal strategy. Egos and "me too" are not sufficient for either side.

Only residents of California have standing for jurisdictional purposes, so the "everything but the kitchen sink" fear is really unfounded. I understand the 3 big lgbt groups, NCLR, Lambda and the ACLU, seek to expand the group of plaintiffs to include a broader variety of the lgbt experiences of California residents, not nation-wide. If the judge in fact indicated he needs more examples of how Prop. 8 would negatively impact a variety of California citizens, as this article's author asserts the purpose of the motions to intervene to be, "with more of the evidence he says he seeks ," then the motions to expand the plaintiff group are a good thing. Why would NCLR, Lambda or the ACLU risk screwing up the outcome of such an important case because of ego? These are dedicated professionals in public interest law. On the other hand, what about the "superstar" team of lawyers Olson-Boies? Could these 2 lawyers be upset that their glory might be overshadowed by the larger groups?

Oh yes. Let's just keep Freedom here in CA and not worry about the rest of the country. BS!!! By the time they can get this to the Supreme Court and they decide to hear the case - Obama will have been able to place another Supreme Court Justice, and then there'll be a majority to hear the case and set marriage freedom for all the states, not just CA (like when the sodomy law was struck down not just in TX but in ALL the states). You namby pampies not wanting actually FIGHT should just sit back and continue to be cowards and let those with some balls fight FOR you.

the case should be narrow (restricted to just prop 8 in calif) and the issue of denial of constitutional rights guaranteed by US Constituition and Calif Constitution to Californians. it should NOT include everything but the kitchen sink vis a vis GLBT experience. there is a strategy here, with this so-called "super star" team. the more that strategy gets unfocused, the greater the risk this case spins out of control into a not-ready-for-prime-time US Supreme Court. Exactly what Lambda Legal is afraid of. And well knows.

Drop all rhetoric of religion and simply go for equal benefits and rights.