Comments

  1. BobC562 says

    Are the defendants’ lawyers that stupid? Post-trial briefs have to argue the law based upon the evidence admitted at trial. I don’t remember there being any such evidence, unless I missed it or it was unreported, that would support these claims. This goes beyond desparate.

  2. John says

    I am glad to see Bill Moyers finally coming around on this issue. He’s a devout Christian and was, for many years, one of the few liberal stalwarts who did not endorse LGBT rights. Or even talk about it on the air for that matter.

  3. Julia says

    I’m sorry — but I need to correct you. This was not a special. It was just another standard episode. Source: I’m an associate producer for Bill Moyers Journal.

  4. says

    I hope I’m wrong, but watching that episode of “Billy Moyers’ Journal”, I really didn’t get the impression that Moyers was a supporter of marriage equality. His repeated questions implying that the public has a right to vote up or down on the issue made him sound like a bigot.

  5. John says

    Because the Focus on the Family types weren’t invited, somebody had to bring up the opposing argument. Otherwise the show would be terribly dull and masturbatory.

    And I think Moyers asked that question repeatedly because the California Supreme Court said in 2009 – quite explicitly – that the people have the absolute right to define marriage as they see fit. Although this case is not a direct appeal of that decision, Olson and Boies are essentially seeking to overturn the California high court’s rationale with the federal constitution’s equal protection clause as the lynchpin.

  6. Marco Luxe says

    To John 3/1 5:37
    You completely mischaracterize the California Supreme Court’s Prop 8 decision. In the terms you use, the court said that the people can retain traditional nomenclature but only if there is an equal allocation of underlying rights. Civil Unions must = marriages with the exception of legally “irrelevant” nomenclature. I strongly disagree with their ruling as it historically has been proven untenable. But their ruling was essentially “equal protection means equal rights for all…except for the use of certain words.” The Cal Supremes will soon rue this embarrassing decision.

Leave A Reply