Nigel Campbell's picture

Prop. 8 Defense Lawyer Reveals Daughter Is Gay & He's Planning Her Wedding

Attorney Charles Cooper, who defended California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, before the Supreme Court, has revealed that he learned his daughter Ashley was gay while trying the Prop. 8 case. 

Cooper is now helping his daughter plan her wedding to another woman. 

From The Associated Press

"My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people's do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago," Cooper said in journalist Jo Becker's book "Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality."

...

In June, Cooper's daughter plans to marry her partner in Massachusetts, one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is legal. In a statement to The Associated Press, Cooper said his family "is typical of families all across America."

"My daughter Ashley's path in life has led her to happiness with a lovely young woman named Casey, and our family and Casey's family are looking forward to celebrating their marriage in just a few weeks," he said.

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case, are celebrating the new development, saying:

"We were so moved to hear of the Cooper family's constant love and support of their own daughter, even as the Perry case was in full swing and Mr. Cooper was spending his days planning Prop 8's defense," Perry and Stier said in a statement to AP. "Some may find this contrast between public and private jarring, but in our opinion, loving an LGBT child unequivocally is the single most important thing any parent can do. We are overjoyed for Ashley and her fiancee, and we wish them the very best."

Pure class! 

Thoughts on this new revelation and the Cooper's evolution on marriage equality, Instincters?

 

(H/T: Towleroad)

 

Comments

Illinois becomes the fifth state to reject legislation to ban SOCE therapy.

READ MORE >

Since California and New Jersey passed legislation to ban SOCE therapy for minors almost one year ago, attempts to pass similar legislation in five other states has failed.

There are several reasons for this reversal in trends to limit the freedom of families to decide what tpye of therapy might be needed for their children. First, the opposition to such legislation is becoming better organized. State Family Councils, NARTH, and Voice of the Voiceless (just to name a few organizational examples) are getting more information in front of lawmakers sooner and the educational campaigns waged by these groups are more effective. Second, the legislators themselves are asking better questions and challenging the assumptions of the authors of these bills.

Here is some good news maybe she can get some help;

Illinois becomes the fifth state to reject legislation to ban SOCE therapy.

READ MORE >

Since California and New Jersey passed legislation to ban SOCE therapy for minors almost one year ago, attempts to pass similar legislation in five other states has failed.

There are several reasons for this reversal in trends to limit the freedom of families to decide what tpye of therapy might be needed for their children. First, the opposition to such legislation is becoming better organized. State Family Councils, NARTH, and Voice of the Voiceless (just to name a few organizational examples) are getting more information in front of lawmakers sooner and the educational campaigns waged by these groups are more effective. Second, the legislators themselves are asking better questions and challenging the assumptions of the authors of these bills.

Criminals all have a right to a defense, so lawyers have an ethical obligation to defend them.  Bigots have no such rights and lawyers have no obligation to defend bigotry (even when it is bigotry of the voters). It's great that Cooper has come around on this issue, but his decision to defend Prop. 8 was wrong and I hope that one day he'll understand that and regret it.

In other breaking news, criminal defence attorneys do not always think their clients are innocent.

He's a lawyer.  He's paid to argue a case.  He doesn't have to personally agree with the policy.  He can be privately delighted to see it fail, just as a criminal defence attorney might be privately relieved to see his client jailed.

Add new comment