marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

Overturning Prop 8: David Boies

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:

18
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
13,795 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 15 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Sarenth Avatar
Sarenth
Posted: 10.07.10, 03:34 PM
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.
FL Guy Avatar
FL Guy
Posted: 08.16.10, 09:08 PM
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.
FL Guy Avatar
FL Guy
Posted: 08.16.10, 08:59 PM
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.
adambl Avatar
adambl
Posted: 08.16.10, 01:15 PM
@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.
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posted: 08.16.10, 08:27 AM
@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?)
NotMyCupOfTea Avatar
NotMyCupOfTea
Posted: 08.15.10, 12:03 PM
@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.
Am-Expat Avatar
Am-Expat
Posted: 08.15.10, 07:57 AM
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.
Greg46815 Avatar
Greg46815
Posted: 08.14.10, 08:51 AM
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.
ldfrmc Avatar
ldfrmc
Posted: 08.12.10, 04:39 PM
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. Thanks to Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson.
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posted: 08.11.10, 06:40 PM
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.
Advertisement

Advertisement
FORA.tv ticker
Watch Now
Watch Now
Watch Now