And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?
The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.
Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.
Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation. All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.
Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions. And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."
And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.
So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.
After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.
As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.
If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?
Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.
And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted? It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it?
Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?
And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense? Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.
So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.
Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.
Nor our Constitution, apparently.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/
