The Case Against 8

As a non-American, I found this a compelling look at one of the quirkier aspects of US law and politics - how states may hold local referenda (at least California seems to do it a lot) that may then be challenged in the Supreme Court.

An intriguing aspect was the employment in support of the case of Ted Olsen, the Republican lawyer who got George W Bush elected by making Florida stop its decisive recount. The LGBT community was initially suspicious of him, but he won them over by his principled stand.

Reviewers who want to re-litigate the case itself seem to have missed the point. The populace and local legislatures may not pass local laws that violate the US Constitution. Proposition 8 was ruled to breach the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equality to all citizens. Its supporters did not have standing to appeal against the Supreme Court's ruling, because their rights were not harmed by striking down Prop 8.

This was not intended to be "balanced", as its title implies. As a real documentary it followed real people through an unpredictable course of events. It might have all ended in tears. It would have then been useful as a fundraiser to continue the fight.

The "8" in the title refers to Proposition 8, a California referendum in 2008 that overturned that state's legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. This documentary covers a five-year period in which two same-sex couples (one male, one female) work with a team of lawyers to fight for the restoration of equal marriage.

Even though the end result is already known, this film has a very powerful effect mainly because of the people involved. Most shocking is that a devout Republican attorney, Ted Olson, is part of the team to fight for equal marriage. One of his colleagues in the battle is David Boies who had fought against Olson in the 2000 U.S. presidential election case on whether the Florida votes should be counted. This is an odd but intriguing pairing, indeed.

While the legal storyline is fascinating, the main force of this film is intimate portraits of the two couples who are the plaintiffs in the case: Kris Perry, Sandy Steier, Jeff Zarrillo, and Paul Katami. The revelations of their lives, their coming-out stories, and the support of their families hits right at the emotional core. These are four fascinating people.

"The Case Against 8" begins with high emotions but it flattens a bit somewhere during the second half. However, the personal victories that are exposed in the end leave such a rise in the heart that this movie must be credited for its inspiration in showing the very best of the collective human spirit. This is truly a case where the personal is political and it is magnificent.

Filmmakers Ben Cotner & Ryan White documents a five-year in the making legal battle to overturn California's proposition 8 law banning same sex marriage. Following around real gay and lesbian couples, we watch their highs and lows as they fight for equality and the ability to get married like any other couple in America. Packed in this documentary are behind the scenes footage of the Hollingsworth VS. Perry case in which the voter- approved ban on same sex marriage was deemed unconstitutional and overturned. Joy and prosperity were returned to the land of California, letting them tackle bigger issues such as how to properly ignore the homeless epidemic and why they voted in the guy who starred in Hercules Goes Bananas. For me there was a big problem with the documentary, it's boring. So. Damn. Boring. This was a two hour film that should have honestly been a forty five minutes to an hour at best. All we really watch is court proceedings and sit downs discussing politics until it reaches the inevitable outcome that we already know. Kind of like watching all the boring parts of the Star Wars prequels.

The Case Against 8 was very well-received at its showing at Austin's SXSW Film Festival. This film presents a powerful human portrait of the individuals involved in fighting the legal case that led to the successful legal case that legalized same-sex marriage in CA. The film provides a detailed step-by-step examination of the case and provides considerable human insight into both the unusual legal team that fought the case and the lead plaintiffs who undertook the case. The film brings their heroic struggle to life. It also provides an excellent example of how to present a legal documentary for a non-expert audience with equal parts law and humanity.

However, like so many political documentaries the film is one- sided in its presentation. It sometimes mocks the other side's arguments so that one wonders how they were not laughed out of court. Although some of their adversary's views are presented, it does not really allow an articulate presentation of the other side's case. The film does not really give any screen time to advocates for Proposition 8. Nor does it seem to take seriously the argument that Proposition 8 was supported by a majority of the state's population in a popular vote. In this sense, the film seems to cross the foggy line between documentary film making and political advocacy film making. While I agree with the filmmakers in their opposition to Proposition 8, I don't believe they present an objective multi-dimensional picture of a complex and controversial issue. I wish they had found a way to present a fairer and more complete picture of both sides in what still remains a hotly contested issue. Despite these flaws, the film still remains a powerful portrait of some very important aspects of the complex debate over same-sex marriage.

This one of the better films on civil liberties. We were all fortunate enough for important court case to occur before a majority of Californians changed their views.

Why do I say that? Because marriage equality just like any other civil liberty or right should never have been decided on popular views. These rights ough to be regarded as absolute with no amount of local interference acceptable no matter how the wind blows. Rather than this bounce around on popular opinion, we were able to have a ruling based on the Constitution.

I am glad the film features, and in fact centers on Ted Olson, who unlike so may arguing from point of view and interest, argued for constitutional consistency (just as he had done with the Florida recount and ending clearly unconistutional local gun bans). Some of the commenters and professing reviewers express surprise at "irony" of Olson's and Gibson Dunn's positon. The irony is only a perceived one of reviewers who don't understand the libertarian leaning position.