Hearing on Prop 8 Federal Challenge Today; NYT Profiles Ted Olson


Olson is a former U.S. Solicitor General who represented George W. Bush in 2000’s Bush v. Gore, which decided the presidential election. Boies represented Al Gore in that case. Olson, widely regarded as one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional lawyers, has argued 55 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies ranks as one of the leading trial lawyers of his generation, having secured landmark victories for clients in numerous areas of the law. This is the first time they have served alongside each other as co-counsel.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier have been together for 9 years and are the parents of four boys. Perry is Executive Director of First 5 California, a state agency that promotes education and health for children under five. She holds a BA from UC Santa Cruz and an MSW from San Francisco State University. Stier is Information Technology Director for the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. She is originally from Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa.

Perry and Stier first tried to marry in 2004, after the City of San Francisco began issuing licenses. They live in Berkeley, CA. Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo have been together for 8 years. Katami is a fitness expert and business owner who graduated from Santa Clara University before receiving his graduate degree from UCLA. Zarrillo is the General Manager of a theater exhibition company. A native of New Jersey, Zarrillo graduated from Montclair State University. Having wanted to marry each other for more than two years, they considered options including traveling to other states for a “civil union,” but felt any alternative fell short of marriage. They live in Burbank, CA.

They have issued the following joint statement: “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”


  1. MT says

    Proposition 8 is appropriate because discrimination against gay people is increasingly rare? So, what? That means they need to make some more to fill the vacuum?

    That makes no sense.

  2. Mike says

    To me, it is obvious that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If the judge is unbiased he’ll have to reach the same conclusion. I also hope that the judge keeps the gay groups who came out against this case from joining.

  3. Kelly Atlantic City says

    It’s about time this federal challenge gets underway. Maybe it’s a good thing that California is waiting until 2012 to take the issue back to the ballot. This gives the federal challenge more time to run its course, and ALL states would benefit if the outcome is fair.

  4. Chris in Long Beach says

    After reading this article, it seems that Olson/Bois are ready to fight for the illegality of Prop 8. Good for them! Unlike the attorneys that showed up a couple of months ago to do that and they looked so unprepared and nervous…

  5. Mike K says

    Thanks god for these guys. So much better that these pussy’s going door to door begging for the rights already afforded them in the Constitution, (ie. reaching out).

  6. says

    As long as we continue being the children meekly looking up to the adults, begging and pleading for the cookies – rhythmically and incessantly like children do – we will always be submissive and powerless to the adults’ final wishes.

    GROW UP! We GIVE away our power through our asking.

    Why not empower ourselves and TELL the adults, as other adults, TELL them what we are due. A “demand” is just a loud, whining beg unless you are backing it up with something tangible, like refusing to file your taxes with the I.R.S. until ALL families and children have access to the same legal protections under the law.

  7. roger ramjet says

    What the article doesn’t mention is the reason why the Prop-H8ters want to delay the trial to july 2010:

    They have filed TWO petitions in California to place initiatives on our 2010 ballot to make changing the california constitutional much more difficult than it was when they used Prop 8 to change that same constitution.

    Meaning, they anticipate our organizations placing Pro-Marriagge initiatives back on the ballot in 2012, and they hope that their initiatives will stop that.

    With current polls once again showing Californias clearly in favor of gay marriage (which makes you wonder how they stole the election last time)…the enemy is preparing.

    If there is a federal case on-going while the new initiatives are voted on and passed, the federal case becomes moot – for a while at least.

    Basicaly they are saying, as I predicted: “We changed the consitution to legaly discriminate against you,and now we are going to change the constitution so you WON’T be able to change it back…”

    Typical religious right hypocrites.

Leave A Reply