May 27th, 2009
05:00 PM ET
9 years ago

Bush v. Gore lawyers target same-sex marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) - Opponents of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages launched a new court challenge Wednesday, led by lawyers who were on opposite sides of the case that settled the 2000 presidential race.

Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies have asked a federal judge to block California from enforcing the ban, known as Proposition 8. Though California's Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a ruling issued Tuesday, Olson and Boies argue that the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

"It is impossible to reconcile the restrictions that Prop. 8 imposes on the right of gay men and lesbians to marry with the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of all citizens to make personal decisions about marriage without unwarranted state intrusion," their lawsuit, filed on behalf of two same-sex couples, states.

Boies and Olson filed suit Wednesday on behalf of two couples who were denied marriage licenses under Proposition 8. A federal judge in San Francisco has set a July 2 hearing date on the matter.

California's Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the marriage ban Tuesday, but left intact about 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted before voters approved the ban in November.

Olson was the lead attorney for George W. Bush in the 2000 Florida recount. He served as solicitor general in the Bush administration after the Supreme Court ruling that effectively decided the election in Bush's favor.

Boies, meanwhile, was the top legal strategist for former Vice President Al Gore, that year's Democratic presidential nominee. Before that, he was the Clinton administration's top lawyer in the anti-trust case against computer software giant Microsoft.

Filed under: Same-sex marriage
soundoff (130 Responses)
  1. Chris

    We are never going to give up. We will fight and fight and fight. We have learned from history. Our time will come.

    May 27, 2009 03:02 pm at 3:02 pm |
  2. SLM

    Marriage is between husband and wife, man and woman. Gay couples are partners. I support equal rights, but not to redefine marriage. Put a vote out for supporting civil unions and it will pass. No one is saying people shouldn't be together, be happy and have the same rights. Just draw the line at "marriage". If it is truly equal rights they seek, it is civil unions that will pass.

    May 27, 2009 03:05 pm at 3:05 pm |
  3. Yves Charlemagne

    I feel that people who make such outlandish comments should be held accountable when they make such statements. Why are people not taking such people like Limbaugh and others of his elk be taken to task for such comments? This is a disgrace if we, as voters, and citizens combat these stupid comments. Why doesn't someone come on this man's show and debate him on air? What knuckle heads!!!

    May 27, 2009 03:06 pm at 3:06 pm |
  4. Jeff - Texas

    let them marry only they have to to comply with the following since they want it a marriage:
    2 men- one wears a tux, the other a wedding dress one always has to wear womens clothes.
    2 women the same applies.

    This way we know which one is the husband and which one is the wife

    May 27, 2009 03:07 pm at 3:07 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    Ready to learn your lesson religiots? You can't have it both ways:

    Either "marriage" as used by our laws DOES NOT have anything to do with the religious institution of marriage as required by the First Amendment (i.e., you CANNOT read religious connotations into it); OR

    "Marriage" CANNOT be used in our laws.

    Choose. Keep the word to yourselves or lose its religious meaning...but our SECULAR laws do not exist as your personal repository for codifying your self-proclaimed moral superiority.

    May 27, 2009 03:08 pm at 3:08 pm |
  6. gt

    pervert and sick..... get over it you lost ....move to new hamphshire ....were the motto of " live free or die " is now : if you cant be happy be gay"

    May 27, 2009 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  7. Evan

    Now this is the kind of bi-partisanship I like to see!!!

    May 27, 2009 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  8. Teleprompter of the U.S.

    When the people don't vote your way, run to the courts and hope they'll legislate from the bench and do away with anything the voters want.

    Seems like a recurring theme.

    May 27, 2009 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  9. Jim

    Ted Olson leading the case against Prop 8? Olson was a potential Supreme Court nominee for George W. Wait until Rush hears about this! Further evidence of the splintering of the Republican Party!

    May 27, 2009 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  10. andy

    I heard of a goy wanting to marry his donkey.. Does he have the same rights as gays? Not much difference.

    May 27, 2009 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  11. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    It's interesting that the very people who are the most outspoken that Obama was elected by a majority of the American people and therefore deserves all our support are the very same who are most vocal that Prop 8, passed by a majority of the voters, should be overturned. Are we a democracy or not?

    May 27, 2009 03:16 pm at 3:16 pm |
  12. Heather

    That's interesting. If this case makes it to the S.C., all eyes will be on Justice Kennedy. We already know which way the others will go, so Justice Kennedy will be the tie-breaker. If the Court is going to settle the gay marriage dispute, it will have to go through him, and while he toward the conservative bloc, he did author the Lawrence v. Texas decision. This should make for good drama.

    May 27, 2009 03:19 pm at 3:19 pm |
  13. JML might want to use another example because reading this just reminded me of why the S.C. shouldn't "SELECT" the President of the U.S. Didn't anyone get the lesson of doing so these past 8 years?

    May 27, 2009 03:20 pm at 3:20 pm |
  14. David Neunuebel

    Gingrich is losing it.

    May 27, 2009 03:20 pm at 3:20 pm |
  15. Mich

    this is the united states we vote on what we want ,and what we need ; and most of all we vote on what is right ,and what is wrong. The people in CAL. have already said what they think is right . We should stand by them. If we don't we truely live in a country where the goverment tells us what's wrong ,and right. (AND THAT'S NOT THE UNITED STATES)

    May 27, 2009 03:27 pm at 3:27 pm |
  16. Sniffit

    @ Jeff – Texas, who said "This way we know which one is the husband and which one is the wife"

    Dude, move out of TX for a while...most places in this country that actually made it into the 21st have plenty of straight people who can tell. Yeah, that's right, gaydar is "catchy." BOO!

    May 27, 2009 03:28 pm at 3:28 pm |
  17. jason

    How can a court back something that is unconstitutional? that's crazy.

    May 27, 2009 03:28 pm at 3:28 pm |
  18. Steph

    As someone who has been married to the same wonderful man for 15 years (and is in a interracial marriage – illegal not so long ago) I agree 100% with the people who are fighting to overturn prop 8! Same sex marriage will be legal soon!

    May 27, 2009 03:28 pm at 3:28 pm |
  19. Proud DHS radical

    What happened to the will of the PEOPLE? The citizens of California voted and settled the matter. Of course this would not be the first time that some far-left liberal judge overturned a proposition.

    May 27, 2009 03:30 pm at 3:30 pm |
  20. BJ

    Following the logic of the sheeple...YOU LOST...GET OVER IT.

    Sounds kinda stupid, don't it?

    May 27, 2009 03:30 pm at 3:30 pm |
  21. Typical Republican

    Teleprompter of the U.S. May 27th, 2009 3:09 pm ET

    When the people don't vote your way, run to the courts and hope they'll legislate from the bench and do away with anything the voters want.

    Seems like a recurring theme.
    Uh yea, like Norm Coleman, or Bush being SELECTED rather then VOTED in. Totally with you dude, we RULE them courts with our crying and whining when we don't win!


    May 27, 2009 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  22. Melissa

    The last time this kind of arrogance was allowed, we got black slavery. If people listened to the prejudiced jerks back then, blacks would still be slaves. At least some people woke up and realized that treating anyone that way is wrong. Its time to wake up people. It is wrong to treat the gay population this way.

    May 27, 2009 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  23. Azzy

    The churches should be allowed to marry the gays and lesbians just like us if they want to. The gay's and lesbians must have equal rights under the constitution. The most immoral thing in this issue is that all the religious Right are opposed to equal rights for all. The Bible does not, and should not dictate our laws.

    May 27, 2009 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  24. John

    Marriage can be only between a MAN and WOMAN.
    Marriage cannot be between:
    1...Man and Man...2...Woman and Woman...3...Mother and Son...4...Siblings...5...Father and Daughter...6...Man/Woman and Dog or Horse or other animals or birds...7...Man/Woman and a Car or a Truck or other Things...8... Man/Woman and a Rock.

    May 27, 2009 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  25. cardron

    @ Jeff – Texas:

    You, sir, are a sexist idiot.

    May 27, 2009 03:33 pm at 3:33 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6