Connect with us

David Boies’ WSJ Gay Marriage Triumph



The big news today is David Boies’ Op-Ed, “Gay Marriage and the Constitution,” in The Wall Street Journal. Boies is the lawyer who represented presidential candidate Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, and is now, along with former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, whom he faced in Bush v. Gore, suing the State of California to overturn Prop 8.

Boise makes some eloquent and sound observations, which I’ll share, but I also thought it would be interesting to share with you a few of the almost 300 comments readers made on the Op-Ed.

It’s important to note that The Wall Street Journal is, perhaps, if not the last bastion, certainly the largest mass media representative, of America’s conservative financial elites. For such a “liberal” attorney to appear in the Journal’s hallowed pages is itself a triumph for us, and for his words to be so clear and inarguable, and read by millions of American conservatives who actually has the ability to make change in the fabric of this nation’s thinking is, perhaps for us, the greatest triumph.

That said, I give you a few selections from Boies’, “Gay Marriage and the Constitution”:

“…this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.”

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it.”

“The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership.”

“The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing.”

“…the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens.”

Now, an array of comments from readers of the Op-Ed:

JAMES WRIGHT: “When I say I am married people assume my spouse is of the oppisite (sic) sex as that is what the term has always meant.”

Juan Diaz: “When someone tells me they are married, I assume they are married to the person they love. Why are people so obsessed with sex and sexual acts that they cannot think of marriage as having to do with two people who love each other and are legally committed to each other?”

Bill Jones: “The only solution here is choice and free markets.”

Joseph Lewis: “When Mr. Boies says that choosing to engage in homosexuality is like being black, at what point does the homosexual become a black person? When they are born with the potential to choose homosexuality? When they first experiment? When they become addicted to homosexuality? Are white people like heterosexuals in your analogy? What about people born with anger management control issues, what race are they like? Are people who choose to turn from homosexuality to heterosexuals like white or black people?”

David Grossman: (quoting another reader:)”If any homosexual couple, civil or otherwise, find that they require the legal imprimatur of the state as a condition for the success of their relationship, they need a lot more help than the state can or should offer.”
(commenting:) So why exactly do heterosexual couples require the legal imprimatur of the state and not homosexuals?”

Murdoch Bird: “So let me get this straight, Gary (no pun intended). You want undisputable scientific proof that gays are “born gay”, but you forcefully believe that “God placed Adam and Even (sic) in the Garden of Eden.”

You’re funny.

If we have to explain precisely why gays are gay before they are entitled to equal rights, perhaps we could also strip away all of Christians’ equal rights – and for that matter, special rights to things like tax exemptions for their churches – until we’ve conclusively determined the cause of Christianity and satisfied ourselves that it is not a lifestyle choice. After all, we give away a tremendous amount of our tax dollars to faith-based initiatives and there are lots of Christians out there who ADMIT their lifestyle is a choice!! Why should people who chose a ridiculous lifetyle that believes that the human race decended from a couple named Adam and Eve get a dime of my money?”

Nicholas Divita: “…heterosexuals have done a fine job, all by themselves, of corroding marriage as an institution. To suggest that same sex marriage will destroy marriage is silly. Divorce, adultery, alcoholism, drug abuse, piles of debt, and other rampant forms of dissolute individual behavior over the past 50 years have done a superb job of undermining marriage with little or no help from the homosexuals of the world.”

Bill Jones: “It is a FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION to be for free markets, free people, and liberty, and to be opposed to gay marriage.

It makes no sense.”

Mike Chambers: “Do you think attempting to get a majority of southerners to vote for integration would have been a better way to go then by judicial “fiat”?”

Michael Schmidt: “Gay people just can’t seem to get a break. For years, they were castigated as sex-crazed abberants engaging in a non-stop orgy of multiple sex partners and hedonistic behavior. Now they seek to marry, set up committed relationships, raise kids (gasp!) and basically pursue the traditional version of the American dream – and they’re still criticized!”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


‘Repercussions’: Biden White House Warns Uganda ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill Could Force US to Cancel $950 Million in Annual Aid



The Biden administration may cancel the $950 million in annual assistance the U.S. provides to Uganda if President Yoweri Museveni signs into law its latest “Kill the Gays” bill, which calls for the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and between ten and 20 years in prison for other LGBTQ “acts.”

National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby on Wednesday made clear if Uganda further criminalizes homosexuality and the LGBTQ community there could be “repercussions that we would have to take.”

“That would be really unfortunate because so much of the economic assistance that we provide Uganda is health assistance,” Admiral Kirby said at a White House press briefing.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also told reporters Wednesday the Biden administration has “grave concerns” over the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), and “increasing violence targeting LGBTQIA+ persons.”

READ MORE: Florida GOP Lawmaker Who Wrote ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Facing Up to 35 Years After Pleading Guilty in COVID Fraud Case

“If the AHA is signed into law and enacted, it would impinge upon universal human rights, jeopardize progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS, deter tourism and invest in Uganda and damage Uganda’s international reputation,” Jean-Pierre warned. “The bill is one of the most extreme anti-LGBTQI+ laws in the world.”

Kirby and Jean-Pierre’s remarks came on the same day as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken denounced Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” legislation, saying it “would undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans and could reverse gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”

“The United States provides more than $950 million in aid to Uganda each year, according to the State Department. The money supports development and health care measures, such as combating HIV/AIDS,” Courthouse News reported Wednesday. “Uganda is already among 30 African countries that ban same-sex relations. The new proposal would broaden penalties and appears to be the first to outlaw identifying as LGBTQ+, according to Human Rights Watch.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Continue Reading


‘Unlawful Incursion’: Manhattan DA Schools Jim Jordan for Demanding He Testify in Ongoing Trump Investigation



Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg served up an extensive lesson in American jurisprudence Thursday in his response to House Republican Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s letter demanding he provide communications and testify before Congress on his ongoing investigation into Donald Trump’s hush money payoff to Stormy Daniels.

Jordan’s demand was seen by legal experts as a “purely political attack.” They note Jordan has no constitutional oversight authority over a duly-elected county district attorney.

Bragg is respectfully refusing Jordan’s demands.

Thorough his office’s General Counsel, Bragg sent Jordan a five-page letter (below) filled with numerous citations of federal and state law and legal decisions up to and including from the U.S. Supreme Court, that offer the Judiciary Chairman instruction in the law and that support the District Attorney’s refusal.

READ MORE: ‘Going Full Fascist’: Morning Joe Blasts Trump’s Latest ‘Dehumanizing’ Attack on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg

In Bragg’s response, he calls Jordan’s letter “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution,” and notes it “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day, and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.” He tells Jordan, “if charges are brought … it will be because the rule of law and faithful execution of the District Attorney’s duty require it.”

Jordan, who refused to comply with a lawful subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, had claimed his demand for documents and testimony was in furtherance of a legislative purpose, an effort to examine federal law. Bragg refuted that claim: “Congress cannot have any legitimate legislative task relating to the oversight of local prosecutors enforcing state law.”

“In New York, the District Attorney is a constitutional officer charged with ‘the responsibility to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county in which he serves,'” Bragg’s letter continues, offering an education into the concept of federalism and the U.S. Constitution. “These are quintessential police powers belonging to the State, and your letter treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states.”

In a section titled, “Compliance with the Letter Would Interfere with Law Enforcement,” the Manhattan DA’s response says Jordan’s letter “seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law.” It adds that “prosecutor’s disclosure of grand jury evidence is a felony.”

Continuing to explain the law to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Bragg’s letter adds:

“These confidentiality provisions exist to protect the interests of the various participants in the criminal process–the defendant, the witnesses, and members of the grand jury- as well as the integrity of the grand jury proceeding itself. Like the Department of Justice, as a prosecutor exercising sovereign executive powers, the District Attorney has a constitutional obligation to ‘protect the government’s ability to prosecute fully and fairly,’ to ‘independently and impartially uphold the rule of law,’ to ‘protect witnesses and law enforcement,’ to ‘avoid flight by those implicated in our investigations,’ and to ‘prevent additional crimes.'”

READ MORE: Trump Lawyer’s ‘Critical Evidence’ Will Help DOJ Make Decision to Charge ‘Without Significant Delay’: Former Prosecutor

It continues, warning Jordan’s “requests are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty. Congress’s investigative jurisdiction is derived from and limited by its power to legislate concerning federal matters.”

Bragg twice offers to meet with staffers from Jordan’s Judiciary Committee to see if the Chairman’s requests “could be accommodated without impeding those sovereign interests.”

Read the letter posted by Axios’ Andrew Solender below or at this link.



Continue Reading


‘Going Full Fascist’: Morning Joe Blasts Trump’s Latest ‘Dehumanizing’ Attack on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg



Days after he wrongly claimed he would be arrested and urged his supporters to “protest,” Donald Trump unleashed a vicious and antisemitic attack against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and philanthropist and donor George Soros, leading “Morning Joe” Scarborough on MSNBC to declare the ex-president has gone “full fascist” and even “full Nazi.”

“I mean he’s just going full Nazi here, full fascist,” Scarborough said Thursday morning, just minutes after Trump’s remarks posted on social media.

“You’re doing the whole Jewish international banker thing and and dehumanizing him as an ‘animal,’ calling him an ‘animal,'” Scarborough said.

“That’s ugly,” Mika Brzezinski added.

“And that’s like like straight out of the playbook. Yeah, that’s really that’s really ugly. Yeah, it’s really interesting to see exactly what’s happened with Bragg. He hasn’t taken the bait.”

READ MORE: Trump Lawyer’s ‘Critical Evidence’ Will Help DOJ Make Decision to Charge ‘Without Significant Delay’: Former Prosecutor

Thursday morning, in an all-caps rant, Trump called District Attorney Bragg a “Soros backed animal who just doesn’t care about right or wrong no matter how many people are hurt.”

Scarborough was not being hyperbolic when he said Trump had gone “full Nazi.”

“This is no legal system, this is the Gestapo, this is Russia and China, but worse. Disgraceful!”

The Gestapo were Adolf Hitler’s Nazi secret police.

In a separate post Thursday morning, after his attack on Bragg, Trump again appeared to telegraph a call for violence, writing: “Everybody knows I’m 100% innocent, including Bragg, but he doesn’t care. He is just carrying out the plans of the radical left lunatics. Our country is being destroyed, as they tell us to be peaceful!”

It is possible the grand jury, which is meeting Thursday, could vote on an indictment of Trump. Some say any potential vote would not come before next week.

READ MORE: ‘National Security Implications’: Former DOJ Official Speculates on Ruling Ordering Trump Attorney to Hand Over Docs

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.