Comments

  1. Phillip says

    “Invalidating” marriage? Gay marriage has no effect on straight marriage – period. The only ones “invalidating” anything are the proponents of prop 8 with their will to nullify unions of loving couples.

  2. Bill says

    Let’s give Andrew Pugno (one of the lawyers listed on the brief) a break: a paid spewer won’t get paid if he doesn’t spew, so Pugno had to spew. Hopefully with over 80 pages, the people paying him will figure they got their money’s worth.

    It will be fun to watch Olsen and Boies make mincemeat out of him.

  3. Paul R says

    Jeez. I could have made a better argument for them, and I hardly support their views. But I Guess I’m Trying To Invalidate Common Sense And Rules On Capitalization.

  4. Jay says

    Wow – this is their brief?

    “Ahhhh, come on guys! Why do things have to change? Oh…be right back, we’re just getting to the good part on Leave it to Beaver. I’ll add more later.”

  5. David in Houston says

    When they use inane terminology like “invalidating marriage” they have ZERO credibility. Prove it, bigoted assholes. Since 18,000 gay couples (including Steve and I) ARE legally married in California that means that most opposite-sex marriages would have been destroyed by now. Surprisingly, they aren’t. No doubt, bigots 50 years ago used the same rhetoric to condemn interracial marriage. “White couples won’t know what marriage is if mixed-race couples are ALSO allowed to get married!!!”

  6. Caliban says

    “for invalidating marriage as it has existed in California for virtually all of its history”

    Aside from the idiocy about “invalidating marriage” when it does no such thing, how long have Europeans been in California? Since the mid 1600s? Oh, the native population had identical views of marriage and monogamy before then, did they?

    I suppose that’s correct if you mean California as a political entity, but if you mean it as a geographic area then it’s far from the truth.

  7. Bill says

    @Jay: While one might be surprised at such a poor brief, possibly it is the best anyone could do: if you are hired to sue the local school district for not giving equal time to the idea that the earth is flat (citing some obscure religious text as justification), even Olsen and Boise couldn’t make that sound sensible.

    Of course there are complications. Andrew Pugno recently ran for the state assembly and was defeated by another Republican (a new law puts the two with the most votes in the primary election as the candidates in the general election, even if the two are from the same party). It’s possible that Pugno wants to run again, and that the brief was written to appeal to his backers (which are mostly Prop 8 supporters) by saying what they want to hear. It’s also possible that the “Defense of Marriage” people know that they don’t have a good case and wrote the brief to provide sound bytes that would be good for fund raising – while they may “trust in God,” the reality is that “all others pay cash” and they need a lot of cash to keep their organization going.

  8. gr8guyca says

    “Marriage is thus inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together…”

    This is always the argument that leaves me scratching my head.

    The clear implication is that heterosexual couples would no longer have the right to be married and have children, if this law is passed. Obviously, there is nothing that prevents the current behavior from continuing on as before. I don’t understand how anyone thinks this makes sense.

  9. anon says

    If only they could write the brief in the language of what they truly think. Invalidate == taint, time honored == privileged, LGBT == icky, etc. Lots of code words here.

  10. Dynex says

    LOL they are gonna lose soooo bad that it’s actually going to be entertaining.

    2013 is already giving me so much gay pride. It’s going to be a great year!

Leave A Reply