Prop 8's senior defense lawyer's kid is gay and getting married!

In a simply stunning move, it turns out that the daughter of the lead lawyer in the defense of California's failed Proposition 8 is, herself, gay and planning to wed soon :

http://time.com/67528/prop-8-lawyer-charles-cooper-gay-marriage-views/

I watched as Charles Cooper woefully clutched at any straw he could to convince the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Prop 8 was somehow meritorious; arguing rationaly specious and quasi-etheral notions on the "true" meaning of marriage which I charitably took to be rooted in his religious understanding of the word but which, in essence, seemed like nothing more than re-wraps of: "god doesn't like it" and "gay sex is icky".

That doesn't seem to matter to Chuck any more now that he's dealing with a real person with whom he has a connection rather than some benighted "other"!

Funny how you can spend your whole professional life building up to an historic case the outcome of which you'll happily switch once it becomes your kid instead of " theirs'"?

 

Uhhh so what?

I'm sure there are gay advocates who have family that don't agree with them.

 

Maybe that's why he appeared to be completely incompetent. Perhaps he was throwing the "game" to rig the outcome for the benefit of his perverted step-daughter.

 

Nah. He like all the other people trying so desperately to relocate gays to second class citizenship...don't have an argument based in reality.

It's that simple.

 

The court's opinion in the prop. 8 case was that a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional... which is impossible. He never should have had to argue regarding the "rationality" of the amendment after it had passed. This is why the highly illegal move of refusing to process the appeal was necessary to keep proposition 8 off the books; without that procedural abuse the SCOTUS would have upheld the referendum.

In line with the spirit of the OP, I sometimes mock liberal's pierced, tattooed, diseased, unemployed, drug-addicted, ambitionless, nihilistic, sterile children. I usually keep these thoughts to myself though since mocking someone's family issues is in poor taste.

 

The courts are just playing politics with the issue.

Being a homosexual deserves no more constitutional protection than men having sex with animals or children.

But if the unelected judges approve of the perversion they will just wave their magic wand and make it a constitutional right.

 

He was the lead lawyer in the defense of California's Proposition 8, the most contentious gay civil rights case ever argued in open court; that's what!

Oh, I agree and some of them are winning landmark civil rights cases too.

 

It was his argument that was completely incompetent, not him. It wouldn't have mattered who was making it, there is still absolutely no rational basis to deny same-sex couples the right to enter a civil marriage contract. He's not the only one to have faltered. Numerous lawyers have tried to present such a case in Federal court and each time they've failed, failed, failed!

Yea that's what happened in the face of millions of dollars and the eyes of the entire legal profession and the rest of the world. That's why he's remained employable for so long because of his unbelievable sleight of hand!

 

Congratulations to the couple.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like the judges who waved their magic wand and made mixed race marriages illegal- and the judges who waved their magic wands and over turned voter initiative gun control laws- like those judges.

 

This is blatantly false. The argument held for 200 years and has only "not been accepted" in the past 15-20 years by a bunch of liberal judges, one admitted homosexual "republican" judge and apparently the lead lawyer on the oppositions side had a homosexual step-daughter.

Furthermore, he never presented the argument correctly.

Yeah because you know, politicians and lawyers have always been known to be incredibly trustworthy.

 

I know you believe that

Federal courts have studied this question and almost unanimously disagree.

It's not about their "approval", it's about whether other people's disapproval is sufficient to deny a whole group access to a governmental contract in a free society in the absence of any, rationally, provable harm.

 

It's not impossible for a State constitution to be in conflict with the US constitution. How about we pass an amendment to the California constitution making it illegal for Chinese Americans to purchase property in Los Angeles? Who knows, in a low turn-out election with enough scary TV ads it might even pass? Do you think that overturning that would be "impossible"?

Of course he should, that was the question before the court. Romer decided that you cannot disenfranchise an entire group from redress before the law without some kind of avenue to legal question. "Because I said so" laws are always subject to scrutiny.

On what basis, using what rational argument? I think you should be grateful they didn't hear the case at that time (because, believe me they're going to) otherwise the outcome may have been the polar opposite of your self-projection.

Yes, I can't imagine you doing anything else and I, equally, imagine they never "mock" you in response?

Oh! You think?

 

Care to take a stab at it? Perhaps they'll pay you millions of dollars instead?

As tempting a retreat as it is, cynicism rarely prevails.

 

Hmmm ... Didn't stop you this time, did it? Something tells me it never does.

 

Congratulations to the happy couple. Karma for Charles Cooper.

 

the world works in mysterious ways

 

It would appear that he has had his "come to Jesus" moment regarding same sex marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/17/us-lawyer-who-argued-for-prop-8-plans-gay-daughters-wedding/

A lawyer who argued in favour of supporting California’s Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban is now planning his lesbian step-daughter’s wedding.

Attorney Charles Cooper now says his position on same-sex marriage has evolved. He previously argued that same-sex marriage would undermine straight marriage.

He found out that his step-daughter Ashley is gay during the Proposition 8 debate. Prop 8 was struck down by the US Supreme Court last year.

Cooper’s evolution on same-sex marriage is being hailed as indicative of changing attitudes across the US on same-sex marriage.

Interviewed for Jo Becker’s book ‘Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality’, Cooper said: “My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people’s do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago,” reports the Associated Press.

Good for him for changing and realizing his error. Perhaps it is a bit more difficult to further discriminatory and bigoted laws when they affect the ones you love.

 

Karma is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), and she don't take no prisoners.

 

Does not exist

 

Seems to always happen though, doesn't it?

 

If Karma doesn't exist, why did it happen to Charles Cooper?

 

What's so amazing about it? America is how when everything gets run like a business. They won the Cold War. Now they get to pay everyone minimum-wage with no benefits since the competiton is gone and they don't have to pay extra to make people think life under Capitalism can be better.

I know you know what I mean... if you've ever worked for a Corp... pretend those MBAs are the boss's henchmen.

 

No not at all

 

Prove that it happened . Anyways , if karma exist how can you explain a 7 year old getting kidnapped raped and killed ? What did they do to have bad karma ? Why do good people die in bad ways ? (*)(*)(*)(*) doesn't exist people just convince themselves it does so that they feel better about a poor hand they were dealt .

 

As has been pointed out, amendments to state constitutions have to follow the federal constitution, see the Supremacy Clause. As for arguing rationality, that's the standard of review for discriminatory laws that discriminate against unprotected groups in order to justify it under the 14th Amendment. And they did not "refuse" to process the appeal, they threw the case out because the appellants lacked Article III standing.