Scorecards, Not Balls and Strikes

February 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm 119 comments

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday, I took a look at the Prof. Vikram David Amar’s analysis of whether the case will go to the Supreme Court. But Prof. Amar’s analysis is worthy of additional time.

The thing about the judiciary is that, as much as Chief Justice Roberts likes to say that a judge’s role is to call balls and strikes, there is a lot more to it than that. A judge while not necessarily biased in the traditional sense, comes into cases with his or her own background. Yes, some cases present such overwhelming evidence that the judge can just sit back and call the balls and strikes. But for the most part, cases can go either way. There is a good argument for both sides, and you have to pit the two relative strengths against each other. So, judging is really more like judging a boxing match. Calling a knockout is the easy job, but when you have to show your scorecard, reasonable minds can disagree.

And so we are with the Prop 8 case. While the factual evidence strongly supports the plaintiffs, especially for those who were carefully watching the case, the legal questions can split some pretty intelligent people.

On each of [the legal] questions, the plaintiffs introduced some helpful evidence. Not uncontradicted evidence, mind you, but helpful evidence to be sure. Helpful to whom? Helpful to those judges whose “constitutional gut” instincts incline them to be open to the plaintiffs’ claims. Put differently, here, as in many cases, the plaintiffs have laid a foundation on which a receptive judge could rule in their favor, but have not necessarily adduced the kind of evidence that is likely to win over a judge who was skeptical of their legal, historical, and sociological arguments in the first place. (Notably, the record in the Proposition 8 case may also provide useful – and perhaps more influential — information in some non-judicial arenas, such as future legislative or initiative battles throughout the country on the same-sex marriage issue.) (FindLaw)

Judge Walker will make a determination in a couple of months, but that will hardly be the last chapter. And, as Prof. Amar points out, the case has clearly had some positive ramifications outside of the judiciary. Had it been televised, this effect certainly would have been larger, but there was enough coverage throughout the media that the point got across.

We may win, or we may not. But this case presented a tremendous opportunity to move the whole issue forward. And sometimes you get a bad decision before you get the right one, just look at Bowers v Hardwick, where the court upheld sodomy laws, and Lawrence v Texas, where the court struck them down for confirmation of that. Is this the marriage movement’s Bowers or is it Lawrence?

Well, that question will be answered either by the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court soon enough.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Admiral Mullen stands strong in support of DADT repeal Prop 8 trial + DADT debate = Death rattle of the Right Wing

119 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Rick  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Did the case really get a lot of media attention? If so, where?! I didn’t really see much, but I AM in Germany at the moment, so that may have something to do with it.

    Reply
    • 2. JeffSD  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm

      Im in San Diego – the case got a lot of local coverage here. It did help that our Mayor was on the stand – but they did follow most of the case. (There was clearly bias in the reporting – but thats a different matter)

      Reply
    • 3. fiona64  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:55 pm

      There was one article per day in each of the three “local” papers I follow (SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News). I caught a couple of soundbites on the evening news as well.

      I think that, with the situation in Haiti, the case was overshadowed by “larger events.” As a former newspaper editor, I have not yet forgotten the old saw about “if it bleeds, it leads.”

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 4. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm

        There was nothing here in Jersey that I heard of.

        Reply
    • 5. Val  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:12 am

      I’m in Oklahoma and there’s not been ONE WORD either in the press OR media. Ah…the Bible Belt Blues!

      Reply
      • 6. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:05 am

        Same here Val – if it’s even been mentioned in the papers, I haven’t seen it.

        Love,

        Ozy

        Reply
      • 7. Miller  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:23 am

        I never heard anything in MN and could never saw any on CNN or other network news channels.

        Reply
    • 8. ThatsMyCat  |  February 3, 2010 at 7:28 am

      I live in the high desert of California, (very red) and we have heard nothing. Nothing at all. There are three LDS churches in a town of 20k, so you get the idea.

      Reply
      • 9. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:24 am

        MUST SEE!!!!

        Reply
      • 10. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:26 am

        Another Beautiful Day!

        Reply
    • 11. dieter  |  February 6, 2010 at 2:00 am

      video of a great woman speaking:

      Reply
  • 12. Rick  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Of course it’s good that California got good media coverage and all, but wouldn’t it have really impacted a LOT more people if it got more national media attention? Why is Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and Anderson Cooper the only ones really “covering” gay news? How about some Greta van Susteren action?

    Reply
  • 13. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    I still say the odds are in our favor. The lawyers for the LGBT community are wonderful but Boies and Olsen are highly skilled constitutional lawyers. They brought with them a tremedous team (something Pugno complained about.) This trial was not ‘played’ like other trials. Many of the other trials in other SCs were tried by the state who provided unbiased lawyer who took the trial seriously. This one was tried by religious ‘fanatics?’. The bias brought with them colors the manner and content of the argument put forth. Remeber, these judges are still very intelligent people, they do frequently see through blatant stupidity regardless of what they personally believe.

    Also, while so many good points are being made I would add the the CA SC trial remains extremely important. What happens here has the most influence on future outcome in higher courts. Successive courts are prone to follow the original findings.

    Nothing is guaranteed, but all things considered, this case is exceptionally well played! I have high hopes.

    Reply
    • 14. Alan E.  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm

      One of the things I think about is if the defendant’s lawyers are ready to stand in front of the Supreme Court judges. One must be ready to take a beating if you want to try and argue law on front of those guys.

      Reply
      • 15. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:05 am

        And we saw how well they played in the preseason, wait til the World Series!

        Reply
    • 16. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:06 am

      Oh in case you didn’t notice, the defense complains about EVERYthing.

      Reply
  • 17. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Yes, and if nothing else, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker has given us a new sense of unity, which has built a renewed sense of community, and has even begun spawning Equality Teams outside of California, so we are now building a national network. Brian, Rick, Julia, all of the fine ladies and gentlemen of Courage Campaign Initiative, and all my fellow trial trackers, I havce only one thing to say to all of you: KEEP UP THE BRILLIANT WORK! WE WILL WIN THIS FIGHT!! IT IS TOO LATE TO TURN THE LIGHTS OUT NOW!!!

    Reply
  • 18. slsmith66  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Everyday it has been in the local news here in Sacramento since the trial started. The major networks are blogging on their websites, and the local paper Sacbee keeps it going. Today of course its all about the youtube vids and the DADT news.

    Reply
    • 19. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:32 pm

      oh DADT is all over Jersey news..the armed forces are a big deal here.

      Reply
  • 20. David Kimble  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    I suppose it depends upon where you live in California – I live in a very small community in California that is home to a Navy Base. The local papers have contained no news of the trial – despite the fact that this trial is proving to be the TRIAL OF THE CENTURY. I sent an e-mail to the local newspaper and asked them why there was no coverage of this trial. To this date, my e-mail remains unanswered. It does not surprise me to realize this issue is hushed in small communities, since to admit that there was a trial going on in Federal District Court would only be an abasement to their conservative views of the world.

    Yesterday, I had a conversation with a member of the Mormon Church about the Church’s involvement in the Prop8 campaign – I asked her why the Church felt so compelled to get involved in the Prop8 campaign, breaking laws in the process to which she replied, “I don’t know, except to say the Church told the membership ‘The campaign is under the direction of the Priesthood”.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 21. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm

      Speaking of the LDS Lawbreaking…what are the exact laws that they broke and what is being done? I am only aware of IRS related tax issues but I cannot seem to find much on the subject.

      Reply
      • 22. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm

        For one thing funding the campaign to gather votes on a religious platform under a religious basis for public policy using untaxed money is in direct violation of freedom of religion and money fraud…I’m not a lawyer but that is a fact of legality.

        Reply
      • 23. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:11 pm

        As it stands they did not technically do that. All they did was fund intra-ministry activities that encouraged their members to do that….which is technically quite legal. Moreover, the exact wording of the IRS code is hazy…it says that a religious non-profit cannot donate ‘SIGNIFICANT’ funds to a political cause. Significant is not at all defined. I am curious to find out what precisely…exactly is currently going on with the issue. (BTW Thank you for the response!)

        Reply
      • 24. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:08 am

        Actually, they went beyond the funding – they called voters in California and did not identify themselves, as members of the Church and urged them to vote for Prop8.

        Reply
    • 25. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      Feylx… I consider 75% footing of the bill to pay for the yes on prop ha8te campaign significant….don’t you?

      Reply
      • 26. Sheryl  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:40 pm

        the problem with that 75% Ronnie is that this was contributions by individual members not the Church. This is a major difference as far as tax laws. Yes the church strongly encouraged (very strongly) encouraged members to be involved with the Yes on 8 campaign and to make significant individual donations which did add up to that 75% but those checks did not come directly from the LDS church.

        And if will be interesting to see if the donations of time, media, etc. are considered SIGNIFICANT by the IRS. I have a feeling that as a percentage of funds they will not be.

        sheryl

        Reply
      • 27. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:48 pm

        It is indeed if done directly by the church. If done by the congregation it gets fuzzier. The IRS needs to come forward and address the issue to clear up the issues.

        Perhaps the church will lose its tax exempt status or at least be put on probation, If not I will let you know where there is a large stash of cb-14. If you are careful you will succeed in really screwing things up things for everybody on a collosal scale….but you will have fun doing it. (Maybe we should just let the IRS figure it out.)

        Reply
      • 28. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:50 pm

        thats not what was said in court….that is what was said by the PUG-NO and Maggie lie reich

        it was paid for by the church, separation btw, church and state…if the church continues to be allowed to take my rights away…they I will take something they love…I’m done being nice

        Reply
    • 29. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:19 am

      The Church has admitted to spending to approximately $50,000 of Church money on the campaign. I don’t care if it was $5 this is still a violation and they need to be held accountable. What is interesting is the Church initially denied spending any money on the campaign, then they retracted the initial amount and have finally admitted to spending the approximate amount. Sorry, I don’t have the exact figures.

      Reply
      • 30. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:06 am

        They eventually admitted to paying close to another $100K for things like travel, phone lines, office space and church staff salaries to work on the campaign. It is not even a *dent* in the enormous coffers of the church, so the IRS will probably be inclined to look the other way. However, the church most definitely functioned as a PAC, running the campaign and providing the wherewithall to keep it rolling.

        Reply
      • 31. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:21 am

        It is not a violation to spend some money on the campaign I don’t believe. The statute says that a religious NPO must not spend ‘a significant amount’. Significant in relation to the church coffers? or more likely, significant in relation to the campaign coffers?

        Either way, I still would like to read something about what the IRS is doing. Really I want to see the LDS lose tax exempt status for a few years to make an example!

        Reply
    • 32. ThatsMyCat  |  February 3, 2010 at 7:32 am

      I wonder if we are neighbors? Lots of LDS where I am. And no word of this trial.

      Reply
  • 33. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Yeah we may not have a lot of political power but there sure is a hell of a lot of us(by the way I was there)

    notice the very lonely anti-gay protester in the beginning of the video……heheheh… ; )

    Reply
    • 34. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm

      By us I mean LGBT Americans and our Heterosexual Allies!

      Reply
    • 35. slsmith66  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:33 pm

      I would of had to have spilled something into that megaphone…”woops soo sorry my beer went down that horn of yours”!

      Reply
      • 36. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

        LMAO!!!!…The person who filmed this must’ve had a really good camera or micro….because I didn’t hear that guy at all….he clearly wasn’t very effective…lol…talk about a waste of time…..think of all the shellfish he could’ve been eating at Red Lobster

        Reply
  • 37. ipcress  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    As a retired attorney (and straight ally) I read Prof. Amar’s article on Findlaw last weekend with great interest. Although the 9th Circuit has a liberal bent, I too am not totally sanguine about the Supreme Court, or most importantly, Justice Kennedy. Margaret Talbot has a very good article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbothttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot

    Reply
    • 38. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm

      The 9th Circuit is the first appeal level? If both Judge Walker and the 9th rule in favor of the plaintiffs, what impact does that have on the rest of the US should SCOTUS decline to hear the case?

      Reply
      • 39. Tom B.  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:16 pm

        A 9th Circuit ruling would very possibly strike down marriage amendments in the 9th Circuit area (basically the Western US), and create at least a small precedent for further state-by-state cases.

        Reply
      • 40. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        State SC would not necessarily have to wait for a SCOTUS ruling either. States could be challenged in the interim and ‘when’ each was won, it would further the case for everyone else. Ostensibly it is feasable that a greater number of states would allow gay marriage such that when SCOTUS finally got on the scene there would be considerably greater precedent.

        Reply
      • 41. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:50 pm

        I don’t know the details but I do know that there are couples here in jersey that are planing to do what it trying to get done in cali. So that is one state that is taking next step of bringing it to court.

        Reply
  • 42. ipcress  |  February 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Sorry if the above link was bad:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot

    Reply
  • 43. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    “Let’s Make it Happen everyone, Equality for all!”

    Reply
  • 44. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    this is our biggest supporter and she is changing minds…If not now the kids and teens will,…..I give you LADY GAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 45. Vaati  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:32 pm

      Dear Lady Gaga, she really has pulled my generation in.. I don’t know anybody around my age range who doesn’t love at least one of her songs, or supports gay rights.

      Reply
  • 46. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Ok after watching this video I just have one question for the prop ha8ters and the rest of them:

    What are you going to do if/when this many people stop protesting civilly, peacefully, and legally and become extremely violent? What are you going to do if/when the words stop and we return the years of murders and bashings? DO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE US!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 47. Vaati  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:39 pm

      Violence turns people against a cause, it then becomes too radical to support. Keeping our humor and our good nature intact is hard sometimes, but it’s how we will ultimately prevail over the anti-gay crowd. Hang in there, Ronnie!

      Reply
      • 48. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm

        NOPE…no don’t agree…violence shuts people up either permanently or scares them into shutting up…I’m done being nice…For every gay person that gets bashed another bigot will receive the same.

        Reply
      • 49. Ed-M  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:28 pm

        I’m midway between Vaati and Robert. Agressive violence will turn people away from our cause (just like with any minority); at the same time WE MUST DEFEND OURSELVES.

        Reply
      • 50. Ed-M  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm

        Excuse me, Ronnie, not Robert.

        Reply
      • 51. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm

        Excused….. They forget that history repeats itself …every civil rights movement reached its peak when it became extremely violent…and then the laws were made.

        But because we are gay the don’t think we can do. Newsflash people they said the same thing to the AA’s and Women…look how that turned out.

        Reply
      • 52. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:54 pm

        Ronnie said:

        But because we are gay the don’t think we can do. Newsflash people they said the same thing to the AA’s and Women…look how that turned out.

        And don’t forget that little ruckus at Stonewall Inn 40 yrs ago.

        Reply
      • 53. dieter  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:05 pm

        here is a very finny video spoof of a take-off of broadway musicals…it starts out with leathermen, and ends with drag queens. A funny musical number that talks about our differences, and how we should get along despite them, and that without them there would have been NO Stonewall at all..starts slow but gets real funny about half way through…

        Reply
  • 54. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    Although not the best quality at times; this video, its images, its music and its interviews should really tell those prop ha8ters and all the rest of them YOU WILL NOT WIN!!!!!!

    These are your neighbors, This is AMERICA!!!!!

    We may be nice now, but if you want a war we’ll give you a war!

    Reply
  • 55. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Everybody makes these video go Viral with the messege

    WE WILL NOT GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  • 56. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Part II

    Reply
  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    Ok so these are not in order but you get the point

    “YOU WILL RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Reply
  • 58. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    OUR TIME IS NOW!!!!!!!!! make the internet EXPLODE!!!!!

    Reply
  • 59. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Everybody the article that Callie posted today angered me so much beyond rage adding to that Curios George came back repeating the same prop ha8te crap…. I went on a rage posting and I apologize for that….however I do not apologize for posting all of these videos…..There are more out there….They do not show our political power but they show are numbers, they show our human power, they show our force….we are not going to go away….Let them repeat their crap because unlike them we are not sheep, their repetitive brainwashing does not work on us…WE ARE THE ENLIGHTENED ONES!!!!! GAY AND STRAIGHT!!!!…..They ignore the numbers of our ranks, they ignore the fact that we can fight back harder, fiercer, stronger, faster, TOGETHER!!!!…..IF THEY WANT A WAR WE WILL GIVE THEM A WAR!!!!!

    You can ignore a sleeping Volcano, but you CANNOT ignore the eruption!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 60. george  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:42 am

      You’re the enlightened ones? Oh, yeah, that’s right: you’re a Cancer. Enlightened, indeed.

      Reply
      • 61. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:51 am

        A swatzy says what?….you won’t be saying this shit when you are face down in your own blood!

        I’m warning you Bigots…for every gay bashing, murder and kid that kills themselves…two of you will be punished!

        Reply
      • 62. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:59 am

        George/Kay, I know that you delight in acting as an agent provocateur. However, I would caution you about something that every animal behaviorist knows: an abused dog will eventually turn and bite you.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 63. Sarah  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:32 am

      Ronnie, all of this talk of violence concerns me. I hope you are just venting your frustration and don’t really mean all of the things you say. Please remember that even bigots have parents, spouses and children who would be heartbroken if someone hurt them. On both sides of this issue are REAL PEOPLE. Even if they are hateful, horrible people, they are still people.

      Reply
      • 64. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:37 am

        I have to agree, Sarah. Ronnie, I am *really* worried about you, okay? I know that you are angry and hurting. Do NOT sink to the level of those people with whom you are angry, I beg you.

        You are a better man than that. A bigger man than that. A kinder man than that. Please, go for a walk or something.

        I know the anger that you feel; I understand wanting to lash out and hurt others the way they are hurting you. There is an old Irish saying that goes “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

        Don’t be what they are, Ronnie. Be better than they are.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 65. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:40 am

        To Sarah, Yes most of it was venting. I don’t mean all of the things I said…When I refer to the the facts of what happened with other civil rights movements, I do it to point out that is where it can go. I have to be honest that am definitely considering arming myself though, because I have never felt more unsafe then I do right now. I am not a violent person unless I have to defend myself, which I have had to do, physically I mean.

        Reply
      • 66. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:01 am

        To fiona64, Thank you for your concern and your words. I have never been one to hide or hold back my feelings..

        The problem I have is the over abundance of under estimation of what we can do and who we are.

        In high school a kid threatened to kill me, with censored words he said, “If you even look at me, you F-ing (the derogatory F word for gay) I will kill you”…needless to say My cheerleader friends kicked his @$$(how embarrassing for such a macho man) He got expelled and now works at a gas station.

        Another time I was walking to the bus terminal at 4am in NYC from one of the clubs I worked at and one guy shouted that f-word again…I simple said whatever and he turned and came after me but didn’t look befor crossing and got hit by a car (Karma sucks)

        The last time someone under estimated me and tried to bash me he wound up in the hospital…he attacked me from behind saying, I am going to kill you and send you where you belong…what he didn’t assume is that I know how to defend my self….I flipped him over, kneed him, and hit him with the same pole he tried to hit me with…I called the police and it was all on video with voice…it never made it to court and was settled.

        They think they know but they have no idea.

        Reply
  • 67. dieter  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    Hey everyone..the youtube prop 8 trial re-enactments are becoming a national sensation..just look at the headlines we got today:

    Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News – My Alerts – Edit Alert
    Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:24 PM PST

    Sponsored Link
    Special Offer – Free Trial of Blockbuster.com
    Rent Movies from Blockbuster.com. Delivered Direct To Your Mailbox.
    Click here to start today.
    http://www.Blockbuster.com
    No Live TV of a Trial on Gay Marriage, but a Replay
    New York Times Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:45 PM PST
    Professional actors re-enacted the trial of Proposition 8, Californiaâs ban on gay marriage, in an elaborate YouTube series.

    Calif. Gay Marriage Trial Re-Enacted On Internet
    CBS4 Miami Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:21 PM PST
    The U.S. Supreme Court may have stopped broadcasts of California’s same-sex marriage trial, but that has not prevented the proceedings from being re-enacted for the Internet, CBS station KPIX-TV reports.

    Calif. gay marriage trial re-enacted online
    KABC-TV Los Angeles Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:57 PM PST
    L.A. filmmakers created re-enactments of the Prop. 8 case, where no cameras were allowed, and posted them on YouTube.

    Gay Marriage Activists Vow to Make Most Boring YouTube Video Ever [Gay Marriage]
    Gawker Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:49 PM PST
    You know how the Supreme Court ruled the Prop 8 trial couldn’t be filmed? A pair of Los Angeles filmmakers have pledged to create filmed reenactments of all 60 hours of the trial based on firsthand…

    Colbert faces off with Ford Jr. over NY residency
    Daily News Journal Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:30 PM PST
    NEW YORK â Stephen Colbert grilled potential U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. on Monday about his shifting beliefs on gay marriage and abortion rights, while Ford defended himself as open-minded to change.

    Gay Marriage Trial Re-enacted Online
    KCBS Radio San Francisco Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:21 PM PST
    A pair of gay Los Angeles filmmakers have taken on the task of recreating the federal trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban for the Internet.

    Reply
    • 68. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:14 am

      Yeah I was quite pleased with that coverage. Many places that barely covered the trial, many more places covered the story about the reenactment. I guess since they didn’t get the media sensation of televising the trial, they at least got the next best thing!

      Reply
  • 69. Lo  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    I would like some feedback on something. With all of the lgbt major issue going on right now (DADT, federal trial of Prop 8), and more to come along the way… will this hurt the democrats currently in office? I see a lot of stuff in the news about Dems possibly losing senate seats after Massachusetts, and it worries me that if we begin to lose our liberals in office we will be taking a step back. I guess my fear is that people like NOM will start campaigning for more Republicans in office and using gay marriage and DADT as a way to drive people to vote for the GOP to stop these things from happening. Didn’t Bush get a lot of support for his 2nd term because of his anti-gay stance?(correct me if im wrong on this please).

    Reply
    • 70. Felyx  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:37 pm

      I am not as certain that the entire country is as preoccupied with these issues as we are….that being said…the pro-gay supporters are increasing exponentially. Dems would not promote the issue if they didn’t think it would do them good. As for the conservatives….when have they not promoted their views on our issues? I feel reasonably sure that the effect will be slight….much too slight for our liking really. (Goes to political powerlessness.)

      Reply
    • 71. Jaye  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:12 am

      The Democrats don’t support us any way…only when they need our money do they even mention LGBT issues.

      Reply
    • 72. george  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:36 am

      The democrats are already in big trouble with the upcoming November elections. There is serious talk of the Republicans retaking both houses, and the recent loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat in Mass. is indicative of even the most liberal of state’s discontent with the ultra-liberal policies of this president and congress.

      Repeal of DADT, and a ruling against Prop8 at either the trial or appeal level will fuel the fire of a disgruntled electorate who are wondering why the government’s resources are being wasted on the homosexual agenda and healthcare for non-citizens, while the country is facing the worst economic crisis in its history.

      Republicans vote, and they will come out in droves in an off year just to boot the dems out of office for their misguided wasteful spending and proposed tax increases. Look for a Republican Congress in 2010, a Republican President in 2012, and more conservative SCOTUS justices after 2012.

      Reply
      • 73. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:47 am

        look at numbers trash bag gay basher…If this country doesn’t change its illegal hate and discrimination…YOU BIGOTS WILL HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN THE ECONOMY AND HEALTH CARE!!!!!!!

        When all else fails, the best thing to do is KILL THEM ALL!!!!…after all that is what you Bigots enjoy to do….I would consider moving to Iraq if I were you…at least there you join in with the public murder of gay people.

        FUCK OFF TROLL!!!!!!…your sheet is showing

        Reply
      • 74. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:08 am

        Yes, the electorate should want to know why resources are being wasted on the ANTI-homosexual agenda.

        Cancer destroys; it does not try to live in harmony with the rest of the body.

        We’re not the cancer, George, you are.

        Just drop the pretense, OK? Your occasional statements belie your true feelings: LGBT citizens need to be eliminated.

        It’s absolutely sickening.

        Reply
      • 75. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:25 am

        Mr HCI, I did indeed note that. George/Kay is obviously a rather disturbed individual. I am hopeful that he will seek professional help for his affliction.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 76. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:17 am

      I think it’s different this time around though. Even many Republicans are coming to our side, which is a complete change from even four years ago. We’re not the easy whipping pad that we once were. While there might be some backlash (especially in more conservative areas), there’s also bigger issues at stake. Also the Prop 8 is part of the courts, not the legislature, and dropping DADT also has widespread support in the electorate (ranging from 59-73% depending on who you ask), so for most people not only is it not an issue, rallying against them can be seen as isolating as well.

      Reply
      • 77. george  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:28 am

        I have to concede that Republicans are coming to support the repeal of DADT, primarily as a means to keep enlistment in the military as high as possible. Discharging soldiers doesn’t make much sense in a time of war.

        I don’t see the Prop 8 issue having as much support; Republicans don’t mind gay people dying for their country, but they do mind them screwing with their marriages and indoctrinating their kids to a homosexual lifestyle.

        Reply
      • 78. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:35 am

        Dear George:

        How is some couple you don’t even know, gay or straight, “screwing with your marriage”?

        I’m just curious.

        Your “indoctrination” nonsense doesn’t even warrant a comment.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 79. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:42 am

        There it is again Curious George wants homosexuality to be Illegal

        NEWSFLASH TROLL: just because SSM in not legal everywhere YET!!!!, Your kids will still see gay people on the news, in magazines, in movies, on TV, in music, on the internet, on their cell phones!

        You are beyond ignorant if you think your kids aren’t aware ann watch the fucking videos…they know and accept

        Reply
      • 80. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:19 am

        Try to deny what your hate does!!!!!

        Reply
      • 81. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:24 am

        Note that George is fine with us dying for America, rather than serving.

        Reply
      • 82. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:26 am

        YOU JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU BIGOTS DO!!!!!!

        Reply
      • 83. Rachel  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:46 am

        Are kids being “indoctrinated” when they meet AA’s or people of Asian decent? NO! Why? Because it’s hard to HIDE WHATS ALWAYS BEEN THERE!

        It just makes me think of this quote from Tru Blood everytime George posts something (I’m sorry the character says the F-bomb… :( )

        “Lafayette: Excuse me. Who ordered the hamburger, with AIDS?
        Redneck: I ordered the hamburger deluxe.
        Lafayette: In this restaurant, the hamburger deluxe comes with french fries, lettuce, tomato, mayo, and AIDS. Do anybody have a problem with that?
        Redneck: Yeah, I’m an American and I got say in who makes my food.
        Lafayette: Well baby, it’s too late for that. F****ts been breeding your cows, raising your chickens, even brewing your beer alone even before I walked my sexy ass up in this mother fucker. Everything on your god damned table got AIDS.
        Redneck: You still ain’t making me eat no AIDS burger.
        Lafayette: Well all you gotta do is say hold the AIDS. Here…
        *Lafayette picks up one of the hamburger buns and licks it.*
        Lafayette: Eat it.
        *Lafayette pushes the bun onto the redneck’s face and punches him.*
        Lafayette: Bitch, you come in my house you’re gonna eat my food the way I fucking make it! Do you understand me?
        *Lafayette takes the redneck’s plate and dumps the food into his lap.*
        Lafayette: Tip your waitress.”

        Reply
      • 84. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        LMAO!!!!! EAT IT!!!!

        Reply
      • 85. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 1:53 pm

        So Curious George this is what you would prefer that your kids do?

        Reply
      • 86. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm

        Ronnie, we already know what George wants. He wants all LGBT people either closeted or sent for conversion therapy. Everyone is to function in strict, “traditional” gender roles for the sake of his comfort. And, my goodness, doesn’t he get mad if someone doesn’t do what he thinks is right?

        One of my favorite playwrights is an Irish fellow named Oscar Wilde, who lived in the late 19th-early 20th C. He said this: “It is not selfish to live as you wish; it is selfish to demand that *others* live as you wish.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 87. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm

        No doubt, he would say what lots of folks did at the the time:

        Lawrence was a confused boy.

        Lawrence was confusing and upsetting the other students, because he was flamboyant.

        Lawrence probably made unwanted advances toward other boys [hearsay and so what?]

        Lawrence brought it on himself.

        It was sickening hearing people essentially blaming Lawrence for getting himself killed.

        Reply
    • 88. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:03 pm

      I disagree, Fiona. From a few of his little asides, I’d say George wants us completely eliminated.

      Reply
      • 89. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm

        I admit, I may have been overly generous in my assessment.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 90. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm

        To Fiona I know but it doesn’t hurt to blast the video…Luv Oscar wilde

        To HCI I agree…it is no doubt that that is what he wants and thanks to that article that Callie posted we know that that is what they want because they are trying to get the hate crimes act abolished…its disgusting…they want that out of the way so they can be free to these things without ramifications.

        Reply
      • 91. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:16 pm

        I’ve heard some “Christian” leaders opposed to adding sexual orientation and gender identity to hate crimes laws assert claim that they are not protected, so why should we be?

        They either don’t know or, more likely, are lying through their teeth. Hate crimes laws pertaining to religion have been around for at least 40 years.

        Reply
  • 92. Ed-M  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Lo, he did get a lot of support due to his antigay stance. But a lot of people contend Bush’s re-election was stolen. And I believe ’em. Bradblog reports that Proposition 8 may have been stolen as well.

    http://www.bradblog.com/

    Reply
    • 93. dieter  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:49 pm

      well in all actuality regarding Bush’s re-election. there was a gentleman who had invented and produced a new voting machine that created a paper trail which would prevent voter fraud. the man petitioned to have florida use these machines and was denied by…”Jeb Bush”… then the man started a lawsuit claiming the governor was clearly trying to avoid having a paper trail for voters. the man mysteriously died one week later in a car crash on a deserted road..alone.when democratic officials called for an investigation..the person in charge of the investigation denied the request…the person in charge: Jeb Bush…….

      NUFF said?
      cant remember the name of the man and the voting machine company but you can google this and see that I am telling the truth.

      Reply
    • 94. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:13 am

      Don’t forget Diebold CEO sending out a letter stating he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” No paper trail makes fixing an election incredibly easy.

      Reply
  • 95. dieter  |  February 2, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    In the news…as a sign from God and the anti gay abortion ad the superbowl is showing… a stage at the super bowl has collapsed!!!!

    Reply
  • 96. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    I have to admit that I let these trolls get to me..but i’m a Cancer so anything less then my full heart and emotion would by the same as if I were still in the closet….I apologize to all my friends here.

    Reply
    • 97. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:18 am

      It’s best just to ignore them rather than add fuel to the fire.

      Reply
    • 98. slsmith66  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:22 am

      Just hit them with some wit Ronnie, most of them are not smart enough to figure out how to change a lightbulb….
      No use giving yourself high blood pressure over it, the cowards would not say the same thing to your face and you know it!

      Reply
      • 99. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:32 am

        And that’s just it. These bigoted twits wouldn’t have the *guts* to do in person what they do behind the safety of their computer screens, for the most part. They think that it makes them big men (or something) to spew their homophobic rhetoric everywhere, but the truth is that they are frightened little children who are afraid of surrendering any part of their heterosexist, male-privileged hegemony to *anyone.* They hate women, straight, bi or lesbian, who don’t keep to their idea of strict gender roles … and that’s the basis of their homophobia as well. Women are only good for one thing: serving as life support systems for a uterus. Hell, look at George/Kay and Marky-mark’s rants about how non-procreative marriage shouldn’t be allowed — yet, it’s not the men who risk their health and life for pregnancy, is it? That’s the root of their homophobia as well, in that they see themselves as the “do-er.” Women are merely “done to.” That’s why homphobes always demand to know “who’s the woman in the relationship” … they can’t conceive of anything other than their gender bias.

        Sad, little things …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 100. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:56 am

        “sad sad little things” is an understatement

        Curious George to the Kay….They come to this blog to unconsciously say that what they really want is to kill all the gays…. But I… I …I see right through you….like a ghostly member of KK Ku coo…they shout bigoted swash behind a keyboard, monitor and a mouse….but in my wheel house…i know the truth…they can’t muster up to say it to the face…because they know they’ll loose a tooth

        Reply
    • 101. Rachel  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:30 am

      We have to understand our anger is well deserved and yes, I get just as mad as you do about the trolls and the propaganda that just comes flying out of their mouths but we need to remember just ONE part of George’s and Kay’s argument.

      This is for the children. The teens who are living in hiding, terrified their family wont love them come tomorrow. We CAN NOT endorse violence on this board. Younger people have even more wild emotions and even less reason to hold back. We can not encourage them to become violent when someone gets in their face about it. Yes, we will eventually hit back, but not with our fists. If this is a fight for rights we need to respect someone elses right to be left alone, no matter what they think or say. I dont want to see our side hurt more by bashers and bigots any more than you do. But someone will see this and say ‘I have every right to beat the shit out of them cause they are anti-gay and I’m done with being treated this way!” As my father use to say “Two wrongs dont make a right, but two Wrights make an airplane!” We will rise above this BECAUSE of the adversity and DESPITE it.

      But jeeze… Do I just wanna smack these people sometimes. It’s like yes, it’s America, NO your religion DOESNT give you the right to step on me. No your religion isnt the only one that matters…. *sigh* welcome to the age of unreason….

      Reply
      • 102. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:34 am

        Rachel, Susan Jacoby has written an excellent book called “The Age of American Unreason.” In it, she dissects how education and being well-spoken have come to be denigrated in this country as “elitist” … and why TPTB like it that way. An ignorant, uneducated populace is easier to control because they lack the critical thinking skills to say “Wait a minute, that doesn’t make any sense.”

        I highly recommend the book.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 103. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:45 am

        No their arguments are for the biological children of straight people only…They don’t care about all the children but

        NEWSFLASH COMMIES….your kids know and accept and some of them are gay

        Reply
      • 104. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:53 am

        They made a movie about that. It’s called Idiocracy. :-)

        Reply
      • 105. Joe  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:55 am

        Oh, and if the populace got their way, this is how it might turn out.

        Long-Awaited Beer With Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports

        Reply
      • 106. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:09 am

        hahahahahaha………..LMAO!!!!! I love it!.. I love hype!

        Reply
  • 107. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:02 am

    The Church’s Cover-up of Its Funding of Prop 8

    Late last Friday, January 30th the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filled a Major Donor Report with the California Secretary of State listing $189,903.58 in non-momentary expenditures on behalf of Protectmarriage.com — Yes on Prop 8. The Mormon Church finally admitted directly spending a huge sum of money as part of its monumental effort to end same-sex marriage in California http://calaccess.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1311334&session=2007&view=contributions

    The Church waited until 5:00 pm last Friday, one business day ahead of the required filing date of February 2nd to turn in its first report detailing at least some of its involvement in the Prop 8 campaign. This was clearly timed by the Mormon Church and its attorneys to try and stay out of the media’s eye. This is an age old political trick, dumping bad news late Friday afternoon, but one that has not gone undetected.

    The Mormon Church has repeatedly lied about its involvement in California’s Prop 8. Don Eaton, a Mormon Church spokesman, told KGO Television (ABC) in November, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this [the passage of Prop. 8].”

    Up until Election Day, November 4th, the Mormon Church had only filed one non-monetary contribution, and that was reported just 4 days before the election for a mere $2,078.97. This prompted Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate http://www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com to file a sworn complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Karger hoped that an investigation by the FPPC would determine exactly how much money was really spent by the Salt Lake City based Church on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262980,00.html

    Right after the complaint was filed on November 13, 2008 Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the allegations are “false” and the complaint — filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate — has “many errors and misstatements.”

    They said that the Church worked closely with its California political attorneys to comply with the law, and that it did not need to file anything further.

    Reply
    • 108. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:35 am

      You see…I told you…They lied to the media, they lied in court, they lied to the IRS, they lied to the IRS, and they lied to the people of california…..

      YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!

      Reply
      • 109. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:09 am

        I don’t know that they could go to jail, but at the least, they might be forced to pay a very hefty fine. I am hoping they lose their tax-exempt status, at least for a time.

        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 110. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:11 am

        That would be sweet, because then they would be forced to follow all the same rules that we have too.

        Reply
    • 111. slsmith66  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Speaking of religion…I would not want to be part of this familys one!
      http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/oregon-parents-jeff-and-marci-beagley-found-guilty-of-neglecting-ill-son/19343293?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fcrime%2Farticle%2Foregon-parents-jeff-and-marci-beagley-found-guilty-of-neglecting-ill-son%2F19343293

      Reply
      • 112. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:31 pm

        Judge Maurer presided over the trial that led to my psychopathic brother’s latest conviction as well.

        You know, I freely believe in someone’s right to worship as they choose. But when their “worship” causes harm to another party like this? I waffle on saying that anyone’s rights under the Establishment Clause should be abrogated (although, as we know, the Biblical American types … seriously, visit http://www.barf.org to see the Biblical America Resistance Front and get more information … see nothing wrong with demanding that such happen to those who practice faiths of which they do not approve), but I think that this actually goes beyond criminally negligent homicide to also include depraved indifference.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 113. Mr. HCI  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:32 pm

        I fixed a quote from the article:

        The Beagleys and their daughter, Raylene, and son-in-law, Brent, are all members of the small church with roots in Kansas but now is based in Oregon City. Followers of Christ avoid doctors in favor of dying.

        If they believe in God, why do they not think perhaps God has provided doctors to heal the sick?

        Reply
  • 114. Bill  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:04 am

    George’s purpose in life listed below:

    Reply
  • 115. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Again I would like to apologize, for most of the cursing that I did and I understand that most of it was off base….I do get out of control when I am personally attacked, but I will calm down….You will not loose my humor and whit though…LOL

    Reply
  • 116. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Another “hooray for the good guys” story:

    http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20100203/b02acd45-0860-45df-b52d-a8a64f384712

    A transwoman’s medical deduction for her reassignment surgery was denied by the IRS and she appealed to the tax court.

    Quote:

    The court ruled Tuesday that O’Donnabhain should be allowed to deduct the costs of treating her gender-identity disorder, including hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery.

    O’Donnabhain said an interview Wednesday that the court “has spoken for my community.”

    Reply
    • 117. slsmith66  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm

      Yay for this transwoman! It’s nice to see she won at a federal level!

      Reply
  • 118. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    More on this so called “indoctrination” BS…..Like i said your kids already know….Unless you are going to make homosexuality illegal WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!

    Our kids will still have access to homosexuality vie other means of information and technology……case in point…

    “The Secret life of the American Teenager”…You think you know but you have no idea!

    Reply
  • […] forgive Mr. Brown for missing my earlier post on what being a judge really means. While it sounds cute to say “neutral referee” or […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...