Boies has been deeply involved in some of the most prominent legal disputes of the past two decades. From serving as special counsel to the Justice Department in the United States v. Microsoft trial to representing Vice President Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore case following the 2000 presidential election, Boies' legal experience is extensive and varied.
Currently, Boies and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. In a recent interview with Salon.com, Boies asserted that overturning this legislation will "improve the lives of gay and lesbian couples...it will not in any way harm heterosexual marriage." In 2010, Boies was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Boies will provide a behind-the-scenes look at his most well-known cases, including Prop. 8, and provide insight into what it takes to challenge the status quo and make legal history.
Bio
David Boies
David Boies is a founder of and the chairman of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. This year, with Theodore Olson, he successfully argued in federal court for the overturning of Proposition 8, California's ban of same-sex marriage. He previously served as lead counsel to Al Gore in his litigation relating to the 2000 Presidential election and as special trial counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice in its successful antitrust suit against Microsoft. In 2004, he published "Courting Justice."
Pamela S. Karlan
A productive scholar and award-winning teacher, Pamela S. Karlan is also co-director of the school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, where students litigate live cases before the Court. One of the nation’s leading experts on voting and the political process, she has served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission and an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Professor Karlan is the co-author of three leading casebooks on constitutional law, constitutional litigation, and the law of democracy, as well as more than sixty scholarly articles.
Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 1998, she was a professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law and served as a law clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Abraham D. Sofaer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Karlan is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the American Law Institute and serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the American Constitution Society.
Civil-rights movement that advocates equal rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. Supporters of gay rights seek to eliminate sodomy laws barring homosexual acts between consenting adults and call for an end to discrimination against gay men and lesbians in employment, credit, lending, housing, marriage, adoption, public accommodations, and other areas of life. The first group to campaign publicly was founded in Berlin in 1897 by Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935) and had 25 local chapters in Europe by 1922; suppressed by the Nazis, it did not survive World War II. The first U.S. support group, the Mattachine Society, was founded in Los Angeles c. 1950; the Daughters of Bilitis, for lesbians, was founded in San Francisco in 1955. The Dutch Association for the Integration of Homosexuality COC, founded as the COC (Cultuur en Ontspannings Centrum [“Culture and Recreation Center”]) in 1946 and headquartered in Amsterdam, is a prominent European group and the oldest existing gay rights organization. Many date the expansion of the modern gay rights movement to the Stonewall rebellion in New York City in 1969, when a raid by police on a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn provoked a riot by bar patrons. “Stonewall” came to be commemorated annually by the observance of Gay and Lesbian Pride Week in cities around the world. The International Lesbian and Gay Association (founded 1978), headquartered in Brussels, lobbies for human rights and opposes discrimination against homosexuals. Although the movement is strongest in western Europe and North America, gay rights organizations exist in many countries throughout the world. Among the major issues pressed by gay rights advocates in the 1990s and into the 21st century were the passage of hate crime laws and the establishment of legal rights for homosexuals to marry, adopt children, and serve openly in the military.
Legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any). The universality of marriage is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions it performs, such as procreation, regulation of sexual behaviour, care of children and their education and socialization, regulation of lines of descent, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for social status, affection, and companionship. Until modern times marriage was rarely a matter of free choice, and it was rarely motivated by romantic love. In most eras and most societies, permissible marriage partners have been carefully regulated. In societies in which the extended family remains the basic unit, marriages are usually arranged by the family. The assumption is that love between the partners comes after marriage, and much thought is given to the socioeconomic advantages accruing to the larger family from the match. Some form of dowry or bridewealth is almost universal in societies that use arranged marriages. The rituals and ceremonies surrounding marriage are associated primarily with religion and fertility and validate the importance of marriage for the continuation of a family, clan, tribe, or society. In recent years the definition of marriage as a union between members of opposite sexes has been challenged, and in 2000 The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages. See alsobridewealth; divorce; dowry; exogamy and endogamy; polygamy.
As a Pagan Priest, an entire contingent of people that I would be more than happy to legally marry are currently denied their right. By the same blow, I am denied my right to conduct a legal marriage despite my agreement that gays, bisexuals, queers, genderqueers, etc. should be allowed to marry...so there's more dimensions to this than just "religions are opposing this". No, certain religions are and they tend to be the mainstream monotheistic ones.
To NotMyCupofTea,
You need to read the transcript of the trail before you come to this conclusion. The witnesses provided by the prosecution indicated their own personal prejudices in the transcript and could not provide any facts that would actually back up their position. Most was rumor and hearsay. In many cases, their testimony was used by the Defense! Please don't make a judgement on his defense until you have read both sides of the trial.
Kentle,
First, being a Vegan is a choice. Marriage should be a right. There are over 1000 benefits that are available to married couples at the federal level that are not available to domestic partnerships including tax benefits and social security benefits. So I am all for civil ceremonies and separate religious rites for all individuals. A religion can certainly determine who can join its congregation but there should not be such restrictions against civil ceremonies. If a person is of the legal age, has the mental capacity to enter into a contract and a willing partner.
@NotMyCupOfTea He addresses a couple points in the second highlight, but I honestly can't think of any argument against gay marriage other than the religious one.
@Mark Sullivan suggests, "The issue is far more serious and deep on almost every level than people on all sides understand, in my opinion. It too often devolves into ad hominem nonsense, impugning the motives of the defenders of each side."
One side, the equal protection clause of the social contract; the other side, ritualized superstitions.
Then there's Article I,
"Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ..."
Considering that the We The People are the United States, just how does state sanctioning of ritualized superstitions fulfill that contractual obligation?
Put another way, what interest does the state have in how anyone achieves a sexual orgasm, much less if they achieve one? (Do you want the orgasm police in YOUR bedroom?)
@ldfrmc Rationally? Are you serious? Boies didn't even attempt to rebut the other side of the argument. All he said was they have none; this is ridiculous. I don't know people can take this serious.
This talk was probably the first I have heard in years that gives a glimmer of hope that the country might survive its headlong rush to self destruction, division, reactionary mob rule and just naked hate.
I moved out of the country almost a decade ago for these reasons and have seen nothing in that time, except a rational, reasonable and compassionate decision based on a skilled presentation of the overwhelming evidence by these lawyers that gives a glimmer of hope that sanity and reason have not been fully extinguished in the US.
Bravo for the excellent talk.
There is one major flaw in your argument, not counting your equating marriage to choice of food. (And even if I were to follow your convoluted logic, no one is trying to persecute vegans by creating discriminatory laws against them.)
We have Civil Marriages, and they are just as valid and legal as those performed in churches. And even murderers on death row, many having lost their legal right to vote, still have the right to marry.
In the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed the freedom of religion. That means no one can force me to live by their religious beliefs, including the federal and state governments!
So to create laws that discriminate against a group of people based solely on religious beliefs and emotion is wrong, VERY wrong.
How breathtaking to hear this man speak with such rationality, experience, judgment and determination. I have listened and read Mr. Olson's thoughts too.
Their talents combined are formidable and the issue as they raised and decision as crafted should lead any reasonable person to the conclusion of equality and due process.
The lingering "what if this... what if that..." opposition is for another, very different, kind of case, if at all.
The issue is far more serious and deep on almost every level than people on all sides understand, in my opinion. It too often devolves into ad hominem nonsense, impugning the motives of the defenders of each side.
member. 
