According to LawDork, proponents of California’s Proposition 8 are planning to engage in some seriously broad discovery [PDF, see pages numbered 11-12] in their defense of the law against constitutional challenge:
We plan to develop evidence that many gay and lesbian individuals desire to have biological rather than adopted or foster children, and that many satisfy these desires with the assistance of technology or by other means. We will seek discovery of the names of Californians in registered domestic partnerships with the parents listed on birth records from the Department of Health’s Office of Vital Records (which maintains birth records) and the Secretary of State’s Office (which maintains domestic partnership records). We may also seek discovery from companies and organizations that offer assisted reproductive technology and services to develop evidence on this issue.
Translated, this seems to mean they will make public records officials cough up the information needed to cross-check California birth against domestic-partnership records to “catch” people whose names appear in both data sets and thus appear likely to be gay parents. In case that doesn’t do the trick, they want to force assisted-reproduction clinics to disclose information about their clientele. Wow.
P.S. In answer to several questions, no, Ted Olson and I are not related.
Tagged as:
discovery,
same-sex marriage
- New court allegations that disgraced Luzerne County, Pa. judges fixed civil cases as well [Legal Intelligencer; earlier here and here]
- Half-hopeful, half-sad story of Florida town’s efforts to live down “Nub City” insurance-fraud notoriety [St. Petersburg Times a while back, but new to me; Errol Morris film; my review of Ken Dornstein's book]
- Evidence continues to roll in against once-touted theory that bans on smoking in public places result in dramatic overnight drop in heart attack rates [Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", earlier here and here]
- Maybe everyone’s too used to such things by now to get riled up by that pic of garishly painted “1-800-LAWYERS” van [Ron Miller; earlier]
- Magazines often found on scene at law enforcement raids = guilty magazines that should be banned from mails? [McClatchy "Suits and Sentences" blog; earlier on cockfighting periodicals Apr. 24, etc.]
- Lawprofs: Let’s carve bigger religious-conscience exemptions into antibias laws [Robin Wilson, L.A. Times; Dale Carpenter series at Volokh; Ira Lupu, ConcurOp via Orin Kerr]
- UK: “Parents sue NHS over ‘wrongful birth’ of disabled son” [Times Online, our earlier coverage of concept]
- Throw bloggers in prison because their posts cause emotional distress? Have fifteen members of Congress gone completely mad? [David Kravets, Wired "Threat Level", earlier]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
bloggers and the law,
discrimination law,
Florida,
free speech,
insurance fraud,
Luzerne County judicial scandal,
same-sex marriage,
smoking bans,
wrongful birth and wrongful life
by SSFC on December 31, 2008
Due to work and family commitments today and tomorrow, this may be my final post at Overlawyered. Walter Olson will be returning shortly.
- Eight Los Angeles police officers may face suit from an unwilling Jamie Lynn Spears decoy. Why does the LAPD provide any officers at all to protect B-list celebrities?
- What slippery slope? New Jersey Civil Rights Division finds discrimination in case of Methodist ministry which refused to rent a pavilion for civil union of two lesbians, but otherwise rented the pavilion for marriage without regard for sectarian concerns. Perhaps this makes sense if sexual orientation is protected under New Jersey civil rights law, but I’m pretty sure New Jersey still gets it wrong on the First Amendment;
- Revolutionary breathrough in cellular anti-aging, or journalistic malpractice?
- “But the majority voted not to disbar since they saw a distinction between an attempt to have sex with the minor and actually doing it.“ Like Eric Turkewitz, I’m astonished;
- In building a law firm, perhaps Craigslist is not the best substitute for traditional recruiting practices;
- Great news for British authors of Popeye fan fiction. American fans are still out of luck;
- Talk show hosts whose entertainment relies on “zinging” stupid guests, with the support of an even more stupid audience, should never invite Christopher Hitchens to appear on their shows;
- Thoughts on whether it’s deceptive, or just lame, to call a solo law practice “the Law Offices of John Smith” or “John Smith and Associates” from sole practitioner Scott Greenfield.
In the event that this is my final piece here, I’ve enjoyed my stint guest-blogging, and commend Walter on the hard work he’s done through the years to make this a great site, as well as to build an unusually good commenting audience. Happy new year!
Tagged as:
copyright,
First Amendment,
legal discipline,
same-sex marriage
by SSFC on December 21, 2008
Not surprisingly, given that the office is occupied by former “Governor Moonbeam” Jerry Brown, he feels that the amendment barring same sex marriage should be invalidated. Also not surprisingly, given that it’s Governor Moonbeam, he takes a novel approach to the argument, one that libertarians may like: that same sex marriage is an inalienable right which cannot be taken away even by constitutional amendment. (The fighting Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not appear to be cited, as it’s a matter of state law).
Kip Esquire, who is a libertarian and who strongly favors same sex marriage rights, has given Brown’s arguments a thorough review, and seems unimpressed. Key criticism:
If I were Kenneth Starr (in the sense of, “if I were as insolent and snarky as Kenneth Starr is”), then I would simply respond with something like this: “What the Attorney General is apparently suggesting is that the California Constitution — is unconstitutional. That simply cannot be right.”
More analysis of the Brown brief may be found at Mr. Esquire’s site.
Tagged as:
Jerry Brown,
same-sex marriage
- Lots of coverage of litigation-reform angles of the election over at my other website, Point of Law (here, here, here, and here). For me the heartbreaker of the evening reform-wise was the surprise defeat of the very fine Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, Clifford Taylor. He will be sorely missed.
- Interesting perspective from Bill Marler, the Seattle plaintiff’s attorney who’s become well-known for virtually “owning” the issue of food poisoning in the press: “Obama may actually see tort reform as a way to show he is a moderate”. [Jane Genova, Law and More]
- Voters in California and elsewhere ignored the urgings of this site and wrote anti-same-sex-marriage provisions into their constitutions. There are many possible interpretations, but one is that the California Supreme Court will be Exhibit #2,971 toward the proposition that judicial activism does not always improve the well-being of its intended beneficiaries. Garrison Keillor titled one of his Lake Wobegon books We Are Still Married, and Eugene Volokh looks at the question of whether same-sex couples previously wed in California can say that (Nov. 5; more, Dale Carpenter, Jonathan Rauch). In other news, “Yesterday, 57 percent of Arkansas voters decided that the state’s 9,000 children in foster care are better off there than adopted by a gay couple.” [Radley Balko, Reason "Hit and Run"]
- As to Topic A, the presidential election, I’ve decided to retire to the countryside and raise heirloom eggplants. Just kidding! Actually, as one who sat the election out after Giuliani quit the race, I’m happy for my friends and colleagues who are happy, awestruck by the historic moment like everyone else, and hoping for the best (i.e., centrist governance) policy-wise.
Tagged as:
Arkansas,
Barack Obama,
California,
Michigan,
politics,
same-sex marriage,
tort reform
- Litigants’ “not about the money” assertions: Mark Obbie has further thoughts on reporters’ uncritical deployment of this cliche, and kind words for our archive of posts on the subject [LawBeat]
- Lawyer on the other side of that much-circulated “I’m sorry” deposition-dispute letter has his say [Markland and Hanley via Turkewitz and Above the Law]
- Local authority in England tells gardener to remove barbed wire from wall surrounding his allotment, thieves might get hurt on it and sue [Never Yet Melted, Steyn/NRO Corner]
- Same-sex marriage in Connecticut through judicial fiat? Jonathan Rauch says no thanks [IGF]
- Lawyers are back suing despite reform of FACTA, the credit-card-receipt “gotcha” law, but insurance might just dry up [Randy Maniloff at Point of Law]
- “Racing to the trough” — auto lenders latest to ask bailout though original TARP rationale of liquidity fix seems remote [Naked Capitalism]
- “To be a green-certified property (pretty important in crunchy Portland) there must be an absolute prohibition on smoking, including outdoor spaces.” [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason "Hit and Run"]
- (Failed) claim in trademark case: “the term ‘electric’ is not commonly used by the general public to describe a source of power for watches” [TTAB via Ron Coleman]
Tagged as:
accolades,
assumption of risk,
Connecticut,
criminals who sue,
FACTA,
not about the money,
premises liability,
same-sex marriage,
smoking bans,
trademarks,
United Kingdom
This November, voters in California, Arizona and Florida will decide on proposals to amend their state constitutions to include permanent bans on same-sex marriage. A new Field poll indicates that California voters are leaning heavily against that state’s Proposition 8 by a 38 to 55 percent margin, almost double the margin by which the measure was failing in July, despite an intensive “pro” campaign by conservative religious forces. A recent Quinnipiac poll in Florida shows the amendment there still in the lead, but not by the 60 percent majority needed to pass a constitutional change under that state’s law. Arizona voters rejected a ballot measure of this sort two years ago, and opponents have high hopes of defeating it again.
I’ve editorialized repeatedly against these measures in this space and will repeat some of what I wrote four years ago [click to continue…]
Tagged as:
Arizona,
Arkansas,
California,
Florida,
foster care,
same-sex marriage
Virginia Postrel wonders why publicity-hound attorney Gloria Allred wouldn’t let her clients have the spotlight for once last week. “This is not just rude. It’s bad politics. If you want to get Californians to vote against a state-constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, you should keep the obnoxious leftist lawyers out of sight and highlight the happy families.” (Jun. 18).
Tagged as:
Gloria Allred,
same-sex marriage
- Canada free speech: Islamic group files complaint against Halifax newspaper over cartoon of burka-wearing terror fan; two more libel suits aimed at online conservative voices; growing furor over complaint against Steyn/Macleans [National Post]
- More than 5,000 students committed crimes last year in Philadelphia schools, but none were expelled — consent decrees tying system’s hands are one reason [Inquirer]
- U.K.: Man threatened with legal action for flying pirate flag as part of daughter’s birthday party [Guardian]
- Bankruptcy judge doesn’t plan to accept at face value Countrywide’s claim that it generated false escrow documents by mistake in foreclosure [WSJ, WSJ law blog]
- Amid bipartisan calls to step down, Ohio AG Marc Dann [Apr. 19, May 6] hires an opposition researcher [Adler @ Volokh] on top of Washington lobbyist [Legal NewsLine], after being rebuked by judge for political suit [Dispatch]. And where’s that ethics form on the Chesley flight? [Dayton Daily News]
- Missouri med-mal claims fall sharply after legislated damages curb [Springfield News-Leader]
- More on Dartmouth prof Priya Venkatesan, the one who wants to sue her students — as suspected, she’s a devotee of deconstructionist Science Studies [Allen/MtC; earlier]
- Covert plan to sabotage Chinese economy? [Wilson Center event]
- What, never? Well, hardly ever: Docs continue to assail notion that various complications such as patient delirium, clostridium difficile infection, iatrogenic pneumothorax, etc. — not to mention falls — are “never events” [KevinMD various posts; earlier]
- Mich. high court agrees anti-gay-marriage amendment bars municipal health benefits for domestic partners, just what key proponents had claimed it wouldn’t do [Rauch @ IGF, Carpenter @ Volokh, earlier]
- Private service rates the safety of charter air providers — but can it afford the cost of being sued after giving a bad rating? [Three years ago on Overlawyered]
Tagged as:
bankruptcy,
Countrywide,
Dartmouth,
domestic partners,
free speech,
free speech in Canada,
hospitals,
libel slander and defamation,
Marc Dann,
Mark Steyn,
Missouri,
never events,
Ohio,
Philadelphia,
regulation through litigation,
roundups,
same-sex marriage,
school discipline,
Stan Chesley,
tort reform
Stephen Dunne, 30, flunked the Massachusetts bar exam and now says it was because he refused on principle to answer an exam question concerning the rights of two married lesbians, their children and property. He claims the hypothetical, which concludes with the question “What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”, violated his First Amendment rights and served as a “screening device” to exclude persons like himself who disapprove on religious grounds of the state’s gay marriage law. “But Boston attorney Tom Dacey doesn’t believe the case will go very far. … ‘Lawyers have to answer questions about legal principles they disagree with all the time, and that doesn’t mean we’re endorsing them,’ said Dacey, a director of Goulston & Storrs’ litigation group. ‘You might be somebody who is morally opposed to divorce, but have to interpret the divorce laws of the commonwealth to answer a question about who property is passed to.’” (Donna Goodison, “Bar-exam flunker sues: Wannabe rejects gay-wed question, law”, Boston Herald, Jul. 6 and sidebar; AP/TheBostonChannel.com, Jul. 6).
P.S. He wants $9.75 million. And On Point News has a copy of the complaint (PDF). Update: Now he wants less, reports Above the Law (Jul. 13).
Tagged as:
divorce,
family law,
Massachusetts,
same-sex marriage
As we noted back on Mar. 20, 2005, some Religious Right campaigners appear to have talked out of both sides of their mouths on the question of whether their proposed anti-gay-marriage amendments in states like Michigan would put an end to the availability of existing health insurance benefits for the domestic partners of employees at public entities such as cities and universities. When urging voters to approve Proposal 2, these campaigners suggested that the measure would leave existing benefits undisturbed; once it was on the books, they supported efforts to invoke it to nullify the benefits. Now a Michigan appeals court has agreed that Proposal 2 does ban public-employee DP benefits. Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars has details (Jul. 5, 2006; Feb. 4 and Feb. 5, 2007; see also Nov. 22, 2006) on the, um, fancy footwork engaged in by two Religious Right litigation groups, the Thomas More Law Center and the Alliance Defense Fund. For more, see John Corvino, “A tragic lie in Michigan”, Between the Lines/Independent Gay Forum, Feb. 8; Jonathan Cohn, “Spouse Abuse”, The New Republic, Feb. 15; Andrew Sullivan, Feb. 15.
Tagged as:
domestic partners,
family law,
Michigan,
Ohio,
same-sex marriage
“The irony in Virginia is that conservatives fearful of an out-of-control judiciary are in fact inviting the judiciary to get involved in micro-managing family law.” (David Boaz, “Marriage measure is an amendment too far”, Examiner.com, Oct. 30). For more of the many, many reasons to vote no, see Sept. 20, 2006, May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc., etc.
Update: David Frum gloats — and quite prematurely, it would seem.
Tagged as:
family law,
same-sex marriage
As in earlier rounds (May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc.), some proponents are advancing the view that despite its sweeping and ambiguous language, the amendment wouldn’t really endanger any existing legal rights of unmarried persons in Virginia. The Roanoke Times editorially rejects that view: “The legal views conflict sharply. This can mean just one thing: years of litigation under every facet of law that touches upon human interactions. In the antagonistic court arena, the relationships of families and friends will be ripped apart. … Voters should reject this unfair amendment, which has the potential for so many unintended consequences.” (”The anti-family amendment” (editorial), Roanoke Times, Sept. 19). See also Mar. 20, 2005 (sequence of events in Michigan).
Tagged as:
family law,
Michigan,
same-sex marriage
