Tag-Archive for » David Boies «

Thoughts about the Prop 8 Trial

If any of these links are not dead, syphilis need correcting, urologist or if you have recommendations please let me know.

In Support of Esperanto

More Casual

More Technical or Indepth

Text Based

Learning Tools (In English)

In Esperanto

In English

Audio (in Esperanto)


Products In or About Esperanto

Social Networking and Translators

Software Support for Esperanto


Flash Card

User Interface Language Support for Esperanto

  • Drupal: is available in Esperanto (an open source content management system)
  • European Union Website: is in Esperanto
  • Firefox – an open source and free browser – which ‘Totally roxors my boxors!!’
  • Gimp – an open source and image editing software for Linux
  • Google’s Interface is available as a language and you can specifically search Esperanto only sites.
  • GNU Esperanto Translation Team: looking for help in translating part of their website into Esperanto
  • Ubuntu – an open source and Linux Distro
  • Wikipedia: is available in Esperanto (an online encyclopedia)
  • WordPress: is available in Esperanto (an open source content management system)


Custom Search Engine

Esperanto Travel

Nay Sayers

I have been following the Prop 8 Trial for the last week or so via the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and I can say I am really confused with the Defendants – the Pro-Prop 8 people. Their witnesses were to our advantage and their cross-examination of our witnesses yielded pretty much nothing of really use. Both of the witnesses they called came off as incompetent and/or sleazy. It was sad to see … in a good way.

I know that they do not have a rational or logical argument against Same-Sex Marriage, nurse
but this was sad almost to the point of hoping that they declare a mistrial because their counsel seemed completely inept and out classed by the Olson/Boise juggernauts. I am happy to see that, ambulance
because it reinforces the legitimacy of Same-Sex Marriage issue, order
but it also makes me worry as to what they are really up to.

I am pretty sure they were expecting an appeal regardless of who won this first round, so perhaps they have something more vicious planned for the appellate court. They cannot add new evidence or testimony there, but perhaps they are planning on hiring competent counsel to argue their case. The evidence and testimony that they submitted was not too inspiring. Perhaps they may leave it at losing here at the District Court level and not take it too the Supreme Court to minimize the damage, in hopes that this case will not be used as further precedent for other cases across the country? I am not sure what is going on here, but it is worry-some.

Our evidence and testimony was pretty much on target and unflappable. With Loving vs Virginia and Brown vs Board of Education in our courts to show that marriage is a fundamental right, and separate is not equal, respectively, I am thinking that we have a great case in our favor.

Now we wait for the judge to review the testimony and evidence given, and then the court will take on filings for Amicus Briefs, and then Closing Arguments. I do not like this wait at all. There is so much at stake here, but I am quite hopeful.

Gay on Trial: Why more than marriage is at stake in the federal legal challenge to Prop. 8

The article Gay on Trial: Why more than marriage is at stake in the federal legal challenge to Prop. 8 (the American Prospect) has a great run-down on the current state of the gay rights movement especially in light of the famous lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson taking up the case.

The only part of the article that I find annoying is this following quote:

Prop. 8’s defenders seem most self-assured when speaking in broad axioms. According to the motion filed by the defense in Perry, health care “the purpose of marriage [has] always been to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships,” and “every civilized society in recorded history [has] limited marriage to opposite-sex relationships.” But when asked concrete questions, as the defense was at a pre-trial hearing in October, lawyers have been hard-pressed to come up with an answer.

Gay on Trial, Gabriel Arana; November 23, 2009

If they paid any attention to history or anthropology they would find this statement patently false. Marriage has not, in even a pseudo modern world, traditionally been done specifically for procreative or genetic ends. Marriage has been done for power, land, and influence, and love. The ability to bear children is a natural extension of power, love, and influence.

Historically there have been many societies that have revered or thought nothing of homosexuality. There have been even some societies where sex with the opposite sex was abhorrent and only done with the explicit necessity of bearing children to perpetuate their tribe. The possibility of not having and answer for this I find annoying, because it is easy to refute.