1. JJ says

    “…as the nation’s view of same-sex marriage undergoes a radical transformation”

    Radical how? Removing anatomical restrictions that have nothing to do with the spouses’ ability to support each other and their children seems more like an incremental shift than a radical transformation.

  2. john patrick says

    What went on in court today? When Prop 8 was being argued in Federal Court we had daily updates. Why is no one talking about the arguments and questions in the court today? Didn’t the lawyers talk about it after the hearing, like they do after hearings before the Supreme Court?

  3. Garland Tillery says

    Today I felt proud to be a Virginian for the first time in my life.
    I had the opportunity to sit in the courtroom and listen to the impassioned arguments made by David Boies, Ted Olsen, and Solicitor General Stuart Raphael making our case. It was an incredible experience.
    I felt a bit sad for David Oakley, the young lawyer making his case for the Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk as he was very badly out of his league with his argument…but that was not his fault since there was no serious argument that he could make to refute our guys. It was a bit funny, though, as he repeatedly said “unintended marriages” when he meant “unintended pregnancies” as a reason for the state to involve itself in marriages. David Nimocks, arguing for the religious folks yelling outside the courtroom and his Alliance Defense Fund, sounded like a tent revival preacher for about a minute until Judge Arenda Allen Wright grimaced and told him to lower his voice. That seemed to really rattle him!
    Before the hearing I was able to shake the hand of David Boies, thank him, and tell him that I and my partner had been waiting for 33 years for this day. Mr. Boies replied “Hopefully you won’t have to wait much longer.”
    Olsen, Boies, Raphael and Attorney General Mark Herring are my new heroes. I hope to add Judge Arenda Wright Allen to that list very soon.

  4. TKinSC says

    Last I checked it was the job of Defendants’ counsel to make arguments for the defendant. So if it wasn’t to defend the ban, what exactly was the Solicitor General’s reason for being there? Why did the judge even waste her (and everyone else’s) time letting him speak?

  5. Garland Tillery says

    I think it was primarily to ask the court to stay the ruling if/when she finds that the law is unconstitutional. He made a very strong case for its unconstitutionality, but also for the confusion that would result from only ruling for the two couples. He said that would instantly bring hundreds, if not thousands of cases brought by other gay Virginians if she ruled only for the two couples. Apparently that is a possibility. The AFER lawyer, Nimocks, also suggested that she should issue a stay for the same reason. I took that to mean that Nimocks expects her to rule in our favor.
    Attorney General Herring was sitting next to the Solicitor General and my impression was that he was carrying Herring’s torch for him. Herring did not speak during the hearing.

Leave A Reply