Gay Marriage goes to Supreme Court
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 07-02-2009 - 8:21pm |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090702/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_california_1
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The attorney representing two same-sex couples who were denied a right to wed in California said on Thursday he expected the case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to hear a case on the gay marriage issue.
"When it does get to the United States Supreme Court, we expect to win," Theodore Olson, who was solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, told reporters after the first hearing on federal lawsuit that was filed in May.
A high court ruling potentially could trump state laws prohibiting same-sex unions. Five out of 50 U.S. states have legalized gay marriage, which opponents view as a threat to what they view as the traditional family.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used the preliminary hearing scheduled in the case to urge both parties to move to trial as swiftly as possible.
Walker similarly predicted the closely watched proceedings in his courtroom were "only a prelude to what happens later."
"I'm reasonably sure given the issues involved and the personalities in this courtroom this case is only touching down in this court," Walker said. "It will have a life after this court."
The battle over gay marriage has been especially arduous in California, which has historically stood at the forefront of changing social mores.
The federal lawsuit that claims California denies gays their constitutional right to marry was filed days before the state's top court backed a ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to man-and-woman couples, was passed by voters in November.
In May 2008, California's Supreme Court struck down a state law barring same-sex marriage, leading 18,000 same-sex couples to marry. Those marriages remain valid, the same court ruled in May, even as it upheld the voter-backed ban on gay marriage.
In taking the case, Olson joined with former opponent David Boies, a lawyer who represented Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election vote recount leading to Bush's presidency.
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Vicki Allen)

Pages
You might enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWQf13B8epw
Oh, that is so funny! Thanks for posting it.
Really? How about some hard facts and statistics to back the "many Canadians" assertion. I doubt the claim.
IF there are Canadians who come here for the sake of certain medical procedures, I would venture to guess that only those with deep pockets are doing the medical tourism bit. Speaking of which, you do know that many patients from the U.S. take jaunts to other countries like India, Malaysia, and the Philippines. See: http://medicaltourismguide.org/
Jabberwocka
My parents go into Mexico to buy some of their perscription drugs because their deductibles are so high here. They pay pennies on the dollar in Mexico for the same drugs there.
At one time, U.S. citizens went to Canada too. BushCo gave a muddied message:
<
More specifically, uninsured people who buy chronic use patented name-brand drugs on a regular basis may enjoy meaningful savings if they are able to buy safe and effective foreign versions of U.S. drugs for significantly less than what they would pay for U.S. drugs.
The administration said in a report to Congress that the public expectation that most imported drugs are less expensive than American drugs is not generally true.
“Generic drugs account for most prescription drugs used in the U.S. and are usually less expensive in the U.S. than abroad,” the administration said. “Shopping around for price comparisons, asking a doctor or pharmacist for a generic alternative to a prescribed brand name drug, or using a Medicare or other prescription drug discount card is a proven method to save American consumers money on domestic prescription drugs while retaining the protections of a comprehensive safety regime.”
The report, by a 13-member task force, in sum, finds that “American consumers currently purchasing drugs from overseas are generally doing so at significant risk.”
The task force said that legalizing imports would likely adversely affect the future development of new drugs for Americans consumers.>>
http://www.legalnewswatch.com/515/bush-admin-gives-mixed-signals-on-drug-imports-from-canada
My question--when they said "overseas", did they truly mean over seas? Not Mexico, not Canada, not anything in the Americas, North or South? And then there's that last little bit meant to instill fear: " adversely affect the future development of new drugs for Americans consumers". Sounds mighty like pandering to Big Pharma from my POV.
Jabberwocka
***And then there's that last little bit meant to instill fear: " adversely affect the future development of new drugs for Americans consumers". Sounds mighty like pandering to Big Pharma from my POV.***
"Zyprexa was Eli Lilly's top earning drug in 2006 with global sales of $4.36 billion."
quote from this article.
Pages