Posts tagged as:

same-sex marriage

Patrick at Popehat, who lives in Durham, N.C., interviewed his neighbors Gale and Elizabeth, who are a same sex couple, “about how Amendment One would affect them. This is what they had to say.” Earlier here (conservatives who oppose Amendment One include John Locke Foundation president John Hood) and here (most North Carolinians don’t realize measure would ban legal recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships).

P.S. More from Richard Painter. And Gene Nichol (UNC Law) writes about the other time North Carolina amended its constitution to restrict marriage, which was back in 1875 [News & Observer]

{ 16 comments }

May 3 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 3, 2012

{ 0 comments }

The proposed constitutional amendment, which would ban legal recognition of nonmarital relationships, is opposed by figures that include John Locke Foundation president John Hood; Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.); noted foes of same-sex marriage David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt (ban “goes too far“); and not least by Patrick at Popehat, who says, regarding the likelihood that the “parade of horribles” conceivable from the ban would ever come to pass in North Carolina, remembers the days “when I was represented in the United States Senate by Jesse Helms and John Edwards, simultaneously.”

Related: Moorfield Storey blog on Hayek and gay marriage.

{ 2 comments }

Does same-sex marriage have any effect on wider social measures of family intactness? As the institution becomes more familiar — yesterday the GOP-run New Hampshire legislature declined 116-211 to repeal that state’s law — experience continues to suggest that there isn’t really a measurable effect: U.S. states such as Massachusetts and Iowa that recognize same-sex marriage boast some of the nation’s lowest rates of divorce and unwed childbearing, but that was also true before their law changed. I explain in a new post at Cato geared toward the current debate in Maryland.

{ 6 comments }

March 2 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 2, 2012

  • Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who crusades against distracted driving, worsens the problem by honking at motorists he sees using phones [WTOP via Mike Riggs, Reason] Expensive new mandate for back-up cameras in cars may be delayed until after election [Ira Stoll and more, Ann Althouse]
  • With reporter Lee Stranahan, the late Andrew Breitbart shone an investigative spotlight on the USDA’s billion-dollar settlement with lawyers representing black farmers, and there was indeed much to investigate [Big Government]
  • Substance on floor may have been own baby oil: “Oiled Stripper Loses Slip and Fall Lawsuit” [Erik Magraken; B.C., Canada; related on-the-job pole-dance injuries here and here]
  • Honeywell’s new thermostat design deserves high marks, its patent litigation maybe not so much [Farhad Manjoo, Slate]
  • Socialism takes too many evenings: @ChadwickMatlin live-tweets Park Slope Food Co-op meeting [The Awl]
  • Auto bailout a success? Really? [Mickey Kaus, Todd Zywicki, Ted Frank, Prof. Bainbridge]
  • Way to go Maryland: proud of my state for enacting law recognizing same-sex marriage, signed by Gov. O’Malley yesterday [WaPo]

{ 12 comments }

February 9 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 9, 2012

{ 3 comments }

February 1 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 1, 2012

“… he might want to read it.” [Jonathan Adler, Volokh Conspiracy]

{ 3 comments }

September 28 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 28, 2011

{ 4 comments }

September 12 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 12, 2011

{ 3 comments }

I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on New York’s vote last Friday to legally recognize same-sex marriage. I also applaud the inclusion of protections for religious institutions (and would have favored strengthening the protections beyond the current level). The WSJ frames the discussion as “Two Views from the Right,” and they’ve got Maggie Gallagher giving the opposite side.

{ 6 comments }

The Federalist Society has posted numerous videos from its recent National Lawyers’ Convention, including sessions on the aggressive regulatory stance of today’s Environmental Protection Agency, the constitutionality of Obamacare, anonymity and the First Amendment in media and campaign-regulation law, NYU’s Richard Epstein debating Yale’s Bill Eskridge on the court battle over California’s Prop 8, recusal and campaign rules for judges, Dodd-Frank, and the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case on accreditation of student groups, among other topics. And civil procedure/Iqbal-Twombly buffs may be interested in a luncheon panel held just yesterday in D.C. (I was in the audience) in which four law professors (Don Elliott of Yale, Martin Redish and Ronald Allen of Northwestern, and Rick Esenberg of Marquette) outlined ideas for reforming the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reduce discovery costs and improve screening of cases in the earliest stages of filing.

The video above is of the Society’s 10th annual Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture, in which Second Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs provocatively criticizes legal academia and other precincts of influential legal thinking for misunderstanding the role of the military and its relation to the law.

{ 1 comment }

The Human Rights Campaign has issued a report rating major law firms (among other large employers) on how well they address LGBT issues. It takes off points for law firms that have represented anti-gay clients, such as Foley & Lardner, which has represented opponents of gay marriage in litigation in the District of Columbia.

Many nonlawyers will not see anything unusual in this. The thing is, it’s a passionately held tenet of N.Y. Times-reader legal liberalism — sometimes, at least — that law firms must not be publicly shamed for electing to represent “bad” clients in important legal matters. After all, representing those clients does not necessarily mean they share the clients’ objectives or viewpoints. For example, former Bush administration defense official Cully Stimson was widely excoriated after he suggested that it was to the discredit of leading law firms that they had thrown a tremendous effort into the pro bono defense of Guantanamo detainees.

Elie Mystal at Above the Law and John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum are among those to raise the question whether there is any real consistency to all this. And does it make a difference whether the “bad” client is being represented pro bono, or is paying handsomely, as with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand’s repping of Big Tobacco as a young lawyer?

{ 2 comments }

Beldar offers one dissenting view. More: David Link, Independent Gay Forum.

{ 1 comment }

January 30 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 30, 2010

  • Attention journalists: a trademark opposition and a trademark lawsuit are two different things [Legal Satyricon]
  • I explain (slightly rudely) why I think the Citizens United decision will probably help the Dems this cycle [National Journal blogger poll] Plus: no big effect on campaigns? [Ann Althouse] And it’s not as if Chuck Schumer has made up his mind or anything: he’s titled his hearing on Citizens United next week “Corporate America vs. the Voter” [PoL, yet more here and here]
  • Olson and Boies should realize these are not the days of the Warren Court [Dale Carpenter, Independent Gay Forum]
  • Motorists beware Tenaha, Texas: the legal sequel [WSJ Law Blog, earlier here, etc.]
  • “Detroit Lawyer Fined For Chasing Buffalo Air Crash Victims” [Turkewitz]
  • Symbolic venue? Administration chooses to unveil new press-lenders-to-serve-minorities campaign at Jesse Jackson event [N.Y.Times]
  • Remembering pinball prohibition [Popular Mechanics back in August, Radley Balko]
  • Judge cuts “shocking”, “monstrous” $2 million award to $54,000 in Jammie Thomas-Rasset music-download suit [AmLaw Litigation Daily, earlier] Naughty librarians: “Offline Book ‘Lending’ Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion” [Eric Hellman]

{ 4 comments }

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.

{ 2 comments }

May 7 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 7, 2009

{ 3 comments }

Daily Roundup 2008-12-31

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!

{ 6 comments }