This is just too good to be true. The Advocate is reporting that the dream team on David Boise and Ted Olson, who successfully overturned California's Prop 8 and plan to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, may seek legal fees, which are mounting by the second, from the pro-H8 side, once this is all over with.
In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matter — which they opposed in a Wednesday filing.
"Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten [our] time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."
The legal team led by Ted Olson and David Boies has not disclosed how much the litigation has cost, though the organization charged with funding the suit, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, has in recent weeks reached out to the public for donations as the case proceeds to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.
Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of December 6.
Watch as Super-Lawyer Ted Olson, half of the dream team that took out Prop 8, appeared on Fox "News" Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday and handily shot down all of Wallace's right wing arguments against same-sex marriage. Olson points out that anyone's rights, including Wallace's and Fox's right to free speech could be taken away by popular vote, if not for the 14th amendment, asking Wallace, "Would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote?".
Meanwhile David Bois appeared on Meet the Press, where he took on Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who lost in last weeks decision. Boise punches all kinds of holes in Perkins' arguments. Watch and learn.
In the current issue of Newsweek, Ted Olson, one half of the dream team challenging the constitutionality of California's Prop 8 in federal court, wrote an excellent piece explaining why he took the case, why the time is now and why he believes we'll win.
Olson writes, "... there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it."
Opening arguments and testimony began Monday morning in federal court in San Francisco in the challenge to overturn California's Proposition 8 on the basis that it violates the US Constitution's guarantee to equal protection. Due to a US Supreme Court challenge by the pro-H8 side to Judge Walker's decision to record and post the proceedings on YouTube, no video is yet available. Justice Kennedy is expected to render his decision in the matter on Wednesday.
The pro-H8 side argues that witnesses may feel intimidated if their faces are shown to the world during testimony. Personally, I think it's a simple case of cowardice the knowledge that they have a weak case. If you can't stand proudly and publicly for what you believe in, maybe it's because deep down, you know your beliefs are wrong and their validity can't stand up to public scrutiny.
So, dear readers, pending tomorrow's decision, we have to depend on the hard work and dedication of our LGBT bloggers, who are on the scene in the courthouse and typing their little fingers off to keep us informed with the latest testimony. The best coverage that I've found is coming from FireDogLake.com's Teddy Partridge. Reading through the transcript yesterday, it felt like homosexuality itself was on trial.
In his opening statements, Ted Olson, representing the anti-H8 side said, "This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry, described by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.) as one of the most vital personal rights pursuant to the right to the pursuit of happiness, intimate choice, expression of emotional support, the exercise of spiritual unity, the highest expression of self. It is the most important right in our society."
Following is part of the exchange between Olson and Judge Walker that took place in during Olson's opening statements:
Olson: Marriage promotes economic, mental, physical strength. It is the building block of our society.
Olson: Prop 8 ended this dream for thousands of California citizens, even though the SCOCA had defined marriage as a fundamental right, then voters slammed the door.
Olson: The plaintiffs are two LOVING COUPLES in deeply committed, longstanding, intimate relationships.
Walker: Are the plaintiffs not registered domestic partners?
Olson: We will present them and they will tell you.
Walker: What disability do they operate under b/c they can’t marry? Are these differences of a legal nature? Is this a product of state action or of society?
Olson: What the state has done is sanctioned and labelled a formal relationship called domestic partnership which has nothing to do with love. The other relationship, marriage, is now reserved for opposite sex couples. CA has put people into categories.
Walker: Does Prop 8 classify people?
Olson: Yes, it does. There are now FOUR categories of Californians, and that matters a great deal.
Olson: Domestic partnerships are lesser and not the same as marriage.Witnesses recounted the every day discrimination they felt in being told by the state that they are less than heterosexuals.
Olson pointed out, "only opposite-sex couples over 62 years old can enter into domestic partnerships in CA."
Olson went on to outline how the state now categorizes marriage into four classes, including those who married during the window of opportunity between the Ca. Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and the overturning of that ruling by popular vote: "opposite-sex, including the incarcerated. Two: those 18,000 who married during the window but cannot remarry if widowed. Three: people married elsewhere who until 1/1/10 had marriages not recognized by the state. Fourth, the people we represent, who cannot now marry."
I'll be brining the laptop to work today and will post updates as I am able.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vWRDY11ojVEgD7yLV35fLLOicLIp-2afu0_kKqOg0jNHAV4s3BklDqRN5um9Nhz5_j9Bkb0uZpwVKOohFD9SGo4gIPWbTVpsiG-4mMBUY9VIPSTKlujJ8c7R1Z94DVRH8Qcn2Rflz-Gcb2UP_XuvA=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s1don_DBMfTM0ecupepc0OgGNk8xcvhS2XHK2BBL6i6lX-4_mMtibwKojKt1sT13oGZhMnfDBaLg67DCzQ2q3zcTO4K-1i5wQiMECF6eKjW4NcjARsH4rV-hYt_a_EnchOFiri8VBPwUDo2e-iB9wu=s0-d)