Bob Maistros

So let me get this straight.

Two eminent jurists – the estimable Theodore Olson, once W’s Solicitor General, and David Boies, a genius and force of nature with whom I once worked (from the PR side) defending the late, great oil giant Texaco – have now made a federal case out of California’s Proposition 8 defining marriage as involving one man and one woman.

Banning Prop. 8: A violation of federal and state constitutions?

If I understand it right, here is the gist of their case: By voting to amend their state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, the people of California violated the federal Constitution by encroaching on the “rights” of gays to marry. This being a follow-up cause of action to the interesting notion, mercifully rejected by the California Supreme Court last year, that the people of California violated their own Constitution by lawfully amending it.

More specifically, by denying gays who want to marry the privilege extended to same-sex couples who were allowed to wed during the period between the California Supreme Court’s decision sanctioning gay marriage and the overturning of that decision by the voters – but allowed by the high court to maintain their married status anyway, even as it upheld the constitutionality of a duly enacted amendment that denied them that status – the people of California are violating the rights of the couples who want to be married to equal protection under the 14^th amendment.

Ya got all that?

A spiritual thriller by Dan Calabrese. Click the image learn more and to order a copy.

That’s the legal case, anyway. The “moral” case comes down to the idea that by trampling on the “rights” of same-sex couples to marry, we’re hurting their feelings and damaging their self-esteem.

Aw.

This quality of argumentation explains why lawyers rank somewhere just below axe murderers, child rapists, cable providers and members of Congress in the estimation of the public.

Personally, if I were an attorney (oops! I am), I might contend that the people of California are perfectly willing to give gays the same rights as everyone else. Gays, too, have the inalienable right to get married – as long as it’s to someone of the opposite sex. (And one at a time, please.)

But nah. That makes too much sense. And it’s not nearly as fun and profitable as conjuring up new constitutional protections out of thin air.

So I’ve decided to get in on this hilarity by bringing some creative lawsuits of my own, in the spirit of Messrs. Boise’s and Olson’s splendiferous sophistry.

First of all, I’m going to bring a civil rights suit against the Los Angeles Dodgers – and throw in a charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress, while I’m at it – for allowing Manny Ramirez to play left field on their team and not me. Just because Manny is a .300-plus lifetime hitter and drives in more than 100 ribbies a year, while I struck out about 75 percent of the time on my Indian Guides slow-pitch softball team when I was a child (and am 53 years old to boot), it’s no reason to deny me my fundamental right to pursue my happiness and bolster my self-esteem as part of their squad.

Then I’m going after Loreal. After all, they let the utterly delectable Andie MacDowell hawk their hair products, and not me. Just because she has a luxuriously thick and glossy mane, and I’m smooth up top as the proverbial baby’s bottom – well, I’ve always said hair was overrated.

How about Wall Street investment firms? I want a shot at those million-dollar bonuses, too. Just because I don’t know a derivative from a savings bond, it’s no reason to deny me the privilege of plying my trade playing with Other People’s Money and partaking in the profits. I’d feel much more fulfilled with a few more zeroes on my tax return.

Finally, I’m going to take on the feds as well, for refusing me welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, WIC, affirmative action, Social Security and Medicare. Just because I’m over the income thresholds, employed and a middle-aged white male – heck, I’m an American citizen, and I want those benefits. It’s just plain arbitrary that I am excluded from them, and it upsets me.

Gee, I haven’t talked to David Boies for a while. I wonder if he will take my case(s).

12 Responses to “Gays, and their lawyers, have the ‘rights’ idea”