Boies and Olson Optimistic

March 11, 2010 at 8:14 am 176 comments

by Brian Leubitz

David Boies and Ted Olson made an appearance in New York this week, saying that they are optimistic about the disposition of the Prop 8 lawsuit. They pointed out the strength of their own case, and the weakness of the Prop 8 supporter’s case.

“I have yet to hear any powerful argument on the other side,” Olson said, suggesting that Prop 8’s defenders quite nearly defaulted in mounting any counter-case.

“They had no evidence and we had all this,” Boies said, pointing to his side’s success at proving what it set out to. (GayCityNews)

Of course, there’s one issue that seems to be troubling people. If they think they can get 5 votes for marriage equality, what’s up with the televising decision? After all, if you recall how ridiculous that decision was, and the scathing dissent pointing out just how extraordinary the ruling was, you might think that it wasn’t really about TV as much as it was about marriage equality. But Boies and Olson want to direct that question to the longstanding resistance of cameras in the courtroom by the Supreme Court.

Boies and Olson were having none of it. The Supreme Court, Olson said, has an allergy to cameras in federal courts, and was unwilling to allow them to get their nose under the tent in District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s unprecedented plan for a video feed –– notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s approval of it.

In fact, cameras, though routine in many state courts, have made little headway in federal courts, so Walker’s plan was a break with tradition.

But, Liptak noted, the 5-4 majority –– split along the usual ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on several gay rights victories, this time siding with the conservatives –– also gave credence to the Prop 8 supporters’ arguments that their privacy and even their well-being would be threatened by broadcasting their testimony.

This, of course, of course, is the problem. Why did the Court buy the “privacy” argument, when, as Boies points out, their witnesses were people that sought out publicity. They were people who spoke to conferences and at press events. The difference was that they were scared of being cross-examined and exposed by David Boies. Yet, despite the fact that these people have no problem appearing on television at the Heritage Foundation, the Supremes bought the “fear” argument, hook, line and sinker.

The question is then was this about cameras or was it about marriage itself. Frankly, we won’t have an answer to that question for several years. But Boies and Olson believe they have built a solid record that will stand up well through all levels of appeal.

“Every person in America should see this, and we would end this now,” Ted Olson, one of two superstar attorneys challenging California’s Proposition 8 said of the case he and fellow litigator David Boies have mounted in a San Francisco federal court.

Let’s hope they are right.

UPDATE: Towleroad has an interview with the pair. They weigh in on the question of Judge Walker’s sexuality (doesn’t matter), whether the Court will lead (Boies thinks so), and cameras in the courtroom (Olson thinks it’s more about the anonymity of the Justices). All in all, they seem pretty positive right now. Check out the video, it’s worth your ten minutes.

Entry filed under: Statements, Trial analysis.

Twittering at Senator McCaskill on DADT Mexico City Makes History

176 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Brian, after reading the first day’s transcripts, along with all the liveblogging I have read on this site, I truly feel that David Boies and Ted Olson have quite a bit of reason to be optimistic about the outcome of this case. After all, they did one hell of a great job presenting the truth, where the other side only had lies, and they blundered in presenting those. We will win, but even when we win this case, we cannot stop fighting.

    • 2. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

      Not to mention their witlessess su<ked for their case that is….bawww….<3….Ronnie

    • 3. G Rod  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

      It surprises me that Boies & Olson are not game for taking on Question 1 in last November 4th referendum in Maine.
      Having the matter before the 1st district court at a similiar time as it being before the 9th district courts might ensure the matter would have wide import when it got to the US Supreme Court

      • 4. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:31 pm

        It takes a LOT of time and effort to mount a lawsuit of this nature – one that you anticipate will ultimately end up at the SCOTUS. They have been preparing this case for the better part of a year and Question 1 was only decided in Nov of 2009.

        Even if they had a choice of which case to take on, I suspect they may have chosen California’s for a couple of reasons. The 9th Circuit (where the first appeal will be heard) is known as a somewhat liberal court. Also, in California, the tortuous route the issue had taken had created this situation of some ss couples being married while others could not be, which made for a good argument as to how irrational the prohibition is.

      • 5. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:20 pm

        I agree, Kathleen and I see one other development. If we win at SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US), depending on the ruling from the SCOTUS, it seems to me that Question 1 in Maine would fall, as a result of the ruling. <3 David

      • 6. Matt  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:43 pm

        I agree with Kathleen’s comments, but also want to add that Prop h8 and Question 1 were entirely different legal situations.

        Prop h8 took control away from the state’s legislature and courts by amending the state’s constitution directly. As a result, it can ONLY be challenged federally.

        Question 1, on the other hand, only blocked a state law from going into effect that would have legalized SSM. Therefore, since Maine’s court system still has the authority to declare the current ban unconstitutional, it makes sense that the first legal fight in Maine should be in that venue.

      • 7. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm

        Good point, Matt. Hadn’t even thought of that. And, yes, David, an ultimate win at level of the Supreme Court will invalidate the Maine law.

      • 8. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm

        @ Matt,
        I see your point, but I am not sure it matters, since Boies and Olsen spread a broad net in the courtroom – I still believe it would strike down any existing State Laws. Boies and Olsen argued very eloquently and presented witness after witness, who showed the vailidity of the lawsuit – I believe in closing arguments, Boies and Olsen will argue this is a US Constitutional issue. Given the briefs filed in the case, along with the segment contained above from Towleroad, this is, I believe where they are going with the case. <3 David

      • 9. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:23 pm

        There might be some miscommunication happening here. I think the point Matt was making was for why Prop 8 was a better case to bring into Federal Court. That is, Question 1 in Maine still has avenues for challenging it on a state level, whereas the only way to challenge Prop 8 was to bring a Federal challenge.

        There’s no question that the Prop 8 case is a challenge involving the Federal Constitution. If we ultimately prevail at the level of the US Supreme Court, all such laws (including Question 1) will become unenforceable.

        However, even if we were to lose the Perry case, the Maine law could still be challenged through Maine’s state court system. As we’ve seen now in several states (including California before the vote to amend our constitution), state constitutions can have their own guarantees of equality that are not dependent on the US Constitution.

      • 10. Matt  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:48 pm

        @ Kathleen & David: Right, my point was that Prop h8 was the better choice for a federal lawsuit, because there are no other avenues to pursue.

        My concern with bringing a federal lawsuit to Maine is that, since the state still has the ability to correct the situation itself, a federal court is more likely to refuse the case, or rule against us, on the grounds that it’s the state’s issue to deal with and not the federal courts.

        I do believe that the inevitable end-game in this will be a win before SCOTUS that strikes down ALL bans, but the federal courts have always shown reluctance to weigh in when an individual state is able to correct the problem.

      • 11. G Rod  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:35 pm

        @Kathleen, David and Matt. Thank you for taking up my query. Do any of you know whether Equality Maine is considering the court route?
        Perhaps Brian knows.
        I am reminded by Bob’s comments a few days back that supported primarily investing in the court route.
        Has anyone asked Olson and Boies whether there is any merit for LGBT in Maine to consider the court route?
        Kathleen your explanation about why California presents an ideal opportunity is most enlightening.
        But in response to Bolt’s question on the impact of an order being “stayed”, you suggest that the intervening period could be an indefinite period of time.
        Perhaps during that period, but in the context of a favourable judgment, the state Court in Maine could become involved.
        The judgment itself stands until it is overturned. Is it not the consequence of the judgment that is stayed – ie marriages are performed?

      • 12. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm

        @G Rod, you said “in response to [the] question on the impact of an order being “stayed”, you suggest that the intervening period could be an indefinite period of time.”

        A stay will typically remain in effect only until all appeals have been exhausted – that is, until either the final appeals court’s decision is issued or the deadline for filing an appeal has expired. That is an indefinite time, in that we can’t predict exactly how long all the appeals will take, but it’s a finite amount of time in that there is a pre-defined end to the stay.

        (Procedurally, it’s not that straight forward; it’s actually the result of a series of motions to different courts, orders by different judges, and at different stages in the process of winding its way through the appeals courts, but the net effect is that the stay will be in place until all appeals are complete.)

        You asked “Perhaps during that period, but in the contex of a favourable judgment, the state Court in Maine could become involved.

        I don’t quite understand your question. Are you asking if there could be a legal challenge in the state court system in Maine while the Perry case is winding its way through the federal courts? If so, yes, but any ruling in Maine’s court system would have little, if any, bearing on the proceedings in Perry. However, a favorable ruling in Perry at the level of the US Supreme Court would invalidate the Maine law.

        You asked, “The judgment itself stands until it is overturned. Is it not the consequence of the judgment that is stayed – ie marriages are performed?”

        Again, not sure what you’re asking. Which judgment? A ruling in Perry? One in a possible case in state court in Maine? And not sure what you mean by the consequence of the judgment that is stayed that marriages are performed. If there is a favorable judgment (in any case) indicating that marriages can be performed, but a stay is issued pending appeal, then there could be no marriages until the appeals courts rule or the stay expires (or is lifted through judicial action).

        If that doesn’t answer your questions, let me know what it is you’re asking.


    • 13. Bob  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

      Boies and Olson are indeed sounding positivie, Boies reassured us that they are doing everthing in their power, and have done, he encouraged us to hang in, they feel they have presented the best legal arguemnet possible. We’re fortunate for this legal expertise, and I’m confidant there is no one who would argue the case more pationatley. They’re working the courts and the legal angle to move the law towards justice for us.
      Olson made a very clear statement at the end, that considering this, they need all the help they can get, we still need to do our part, getting the word out to the public, talk about this, I’m sure he doesn’t mean amongst ourselves, but to move the discussion into our families of origin, the churches we left, any of the religious right, keep the dialogue happening, these things can sway public opinion, and public opinion is a very important factor in this case.(Olson’s words)
      We have a great legal team on our side, working the court angle, and we have time, he’s talking maybe months before a final decision. What we do in that time period is very important, this issue is right on the burner, bring it up everywhere we can. I think now is the time to challenge us all to come out of the closet, and when I say that, I don’t mean come out in our gay villages we’ve created where we feel safe to be ourselves and rejoice with each other about who we are.
      I mean challenge ourselves to move out beyond the borders of our own personal safety, maybe for the first time have an honest dialog with mom or dad or both, if we’re not close, even just a phone call, okay even a letter, and while we’re at it, write one to the church we once went to, for those of us who did,and say, I am a homosexual, so when you hear all this talk about SSM, and gay rights, please be aware it’s me you’re talking about.
      Let’s not stay in our comfort zone and wait to see the outcome of the court case, let’s help Boise and Olson score a touchdown,
      More stories like the Mayor of San Diego, having a change of heart would carry the ball a long way. and that occured because his daughter came out.

  • 14. Jay  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:29 am

    The more those two men talk, the more I want to hug them and send them fruit baskets every week for the rest of their lives.

    I hope they’re right.

  • 15. Kyle  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:29 am

    “Every person in America should see this, and we would end this now,” Ted Olson said.

    As much as I admire what Ted Olson has done, this statement belies the fact that they are in court fighting to undo a law that only ever passed because of irrational fear of gays and lesbians. Indeed, it is their main contention, that no rational basis exists for denying marriage rights. The whole world could be forced to watch every minute of the trial and you’d still have these people opposing marriage on the same grounds; “Because we said so.”

    • 16. Todd  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:36 am

      Kyle, you’d still have them, but they would be more in the minority.


  • 17. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Good God Man!!!……..hehehee…..<3…Ronnie

  • 18. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    Okla. Senate Opts Out of Hate-Crime Act
    By Julie Bolcer

    “Oklahoma state senator Steve Russell pushed an amendment Wednesday night that makes it possible for the state to circumvent the portion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act that concerns LGBT protections.”

    (me) He can’t fu<king do that!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "The bill is now headed to the house for consideration after passing the senate 39-6. "

    (me) so once again the Hateros want to legally be aloud to kill and bash gay people….I told you so…

    "The senator also said his bill is meant to protect speech of all kinds, according to NewsOK."

    (me) NO!!! you fu<king douche bag….your bill is protect people who commit a hate crime…Yellow stone is about to explode….I'm just saying….<3…Ronnie

  • 19. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Here is Cynthia Nixon’s video for -Fight Back New York-

  • 20. bJason  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Watch out for this!

    Jury Duty Scam

  • 21. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:15 am

    There is interview(video) with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on

    I heart her…..<3…Ronnie

  • 22. JAB  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:19 am

    The part about the SC sympathizing with prop 8 supporters who claimed that they would be persecuted for testifying, despite their willingness to appear publicly in other fora is troubling. Its troubling because the justices themselves probably sympathize with those individuals. They hold the same unspoken, unexamined anti-gay views and feel that they too would be reluctant to speak out about them. Identity matters! Even to SC justices!

    • 23. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm

      The U. S. Supreme Court justices are deliberately isolated from public and political pressure. They are appointed, not elected. They cannot be fired or dismissed from office. And their term of office is until they retire, or die. The only way to remove a justice from the bench is through impeachment, and the only attempt to impeach a justice (Samuel Chase, 1804) failed.

      Therefore, the justices should have little fear in giving their opinion on the issue.

      • 24. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:39 pm

        waxr, You’re absolutely right that we’ve set up the system to isolate the Justices from political pressure. And in THEORY they make these decisions in a way that looks dispassionately at the facts and the law.

        But in reality they are people. Some of them are people who some of the time have a difficult time getting past their own prejudices in order to to do that. The Court has been on the wrong side of history more than once. Even with the issues presented here, as I’ve noted before, look at Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence to see some basic assumptions he makes that appear to come from his own bias.

        Even the question of political pressure — of course they’re aware of the political climate; they’re not kept in locked rooms, even if we don’t see them much in public. :) In fact, it’s a matter of great interest in legal circles this question of just how much are the Justices really immune to public opinion when they make their decisions.

      • 25. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm

        oh my, forgot to close the italics tag. Only meant to italicize “Lawrence”

      • 26. Waxr  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:03 am

        Naturally, it is impossible to deal away with all public pressures and personal prejudices, however the Court has managed to keep them at a minimum. But, as Ed-M points out below, law clerks have a significant influence on the justices.

        Law clerks do most of the research, and write much of the opinions, and their contributions are anonymous. The Court has a constant flow of new clerks every year. They are young and represent top students from the top law schools in the country. The best part is that they are young, and as was pointed out, young people are favorable to lgbt issues.

        It is interesting to speculate on what influence these prop 8 trial video may have on future law clerks.

    • 27. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:10 pm

      When Romer v Evans was in the appeals process to SCOTUS, law clerks in the DC LGBT community came out to Justice Kennedy and told him their stories. Ditto, Lawrence v Texas. Well, now it LGBT folks especially those who get married in DC need to come out to him again!

  • 28. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Quote Unquote: Shanna Moakler
    Written by Jonathan Higbee | Thursday, 11 March 2010

    “I hope Carrie [Prejean] has the most beautiful, glorious gay children. She’s actually not good enough to have such fantastic gay children,” Shanna Moakler confesses to TMZ when asked about her public fued with the former beauty queen-hating queen”

    (me) That’s priceless…..<3….Ronnie

  • 29. Susan Lee  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:01 am

    at the rest of the trial is now available

  • 30. Pdiddy  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Not to burst anyone’s bubble, but what would you expect these guys to be but optimistic? Hello, who would argue a case and then say, essentially, that they did a bad job and were going to lose? Lawyering 101: Don’t let anyone know that you think your case is weak.

    • 31. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm

      And not to burst YOUR bubble Pdiddy, but the reason Olson ad Boies are optimistic is because the case they presented is far from weak. I would rcommend that you go to the link on this site and read the official transcripts of the trial, as well as going to and watching the re-enactments which were made from those transcrpts. If anyone presented a weak case it was the people who were in favor of Proposition H8.

    • 32. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

      Just wanted to say you’re both right. P’s attorneys did an awesome job and they’ve presented a really strong case.

      But Pdiddy is right in that I don’t know that we can read too much into lawyers publicly expressing optimism. Even if they think any part of their argument is weak, they would never, ever admit that in public. It would be foolish to let the opposition think you have even the slightest doubt that you will prevail.

      • 33. Bob  |  March 12, 2010 at 8:27 am

        Kathleen, to follow up on what you said, about lawyers being optimistic even when they’re not, I agree,
        In the interview clip, I see a good cop bad cop senario, Boise, is the good cop, we got this one, everything is under control, trust that we got ya covered.
        But Olson in the last few moments, basically pleaded for help, saying changing public opinion would be very helpful to the case. I think that’s a very bold statement about the onw area they’re weak, and we can do things to work towards hellping that in the few months we have, we got to work at it.

    • 34. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm

      The defense claims that the judge is biased, and that their witnesses were scared away. That is an admission of weakness, and a fear that they will lose.

  • 35. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:12 am

    So I sent an email to Ellen to let her know about this disrespectful violation of freedom of speech and expression going on with school is Miss.

    here is what I sent:

    Dear Ellen, My name is Ronnie Mc and I am a Designer who happens to be a gay man. I know that you are a huge advocate for LGBTQQI rights. I have been tracking the trial in California via the prop 8 trial tracker website. We have been talking about the High School is Fulton, Mississippi who has decided to cancel the senior Prom because 18yo Constance McMillen wants to bring her girlfriend as her date and wear a tux. I was hoping that we could do something to help the class get the final night they deserve including Constance and her girlfriend. I would be honored to design and create her and girlfriends prom wardrobe Free of charge. It time that we stop the anti-gay discrimination in the county. My email address is ……………. Thank you so much and I look forward to hearing from you. Ronnie Mc

    • 36. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:03 pm

      That is such a sweet gesture for you to do Ronnie! Good for you, I hope hear from Ellen soon. <3 David

    • 37. Zander  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm

      Ronnie, you are a godsend. I hope Ellen gets back with you soon. I was talking with my boyfriend about this after work today and I’m very glad to see people are trying to make something right out of Fulton High School. The school board has no right to cancel the prom because of all of this. They’re just trying to cover their asses… too bad the students are the ones to get hurt…

      Anyways, thanks Ronnie. If you do get to make the girls’ wardrobe you should post pictures!

      • 38. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:15 pm

        Yes, it’s unfortunate that the students have to get hurt over this. And I think it was done for nefarious purposes: to turn the entire student body against Ms. McMillen and continue the social homophobia, which is the hateros’ central doctrine!

    • 39. fiona64  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      Ronnie, you are so awesome! Thank you for offering to lend your time and talents to help out this young couple. I hope that Ellen gets back to you soonest!


      • 40. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm

        You’re welcome Zander and finona64 and thank you….This school doesn’t realized that by doing this they are saying that it is illegal to be a lesbian couple…..well news fu<king flash….IT"S NOT!!!!…..I also wonder if that the school can loose all federal funding for doing this….I don't think they do….well I guess they'll find out…yeah?…..<3….Ronnie

    • 41. Catherine  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm

      Ronnie, that is awesome! I hope Ellen steps in. Have you thought of contacting Rosie O’Donnell too? Or other famous gay/lesbian people? It’s an absolute disgrace that the school would deprive all the young people of their prom because of its own closemindedness. In addition, I’m sure that many of the people are putting the blame on the gay couple instead of where it belongs. I can just hear them, “Why won’t they just stay in the closet where they belong?”

      • 42. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm

        I was thinking of contacting The View or Oprah….<3…Ronnie

      • 43. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm

        And Ronnie, what is to stop you from contacting BOTH shows?

      • 44. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

        True…I look into that…I know Ellen like to take show ideas from fans that’s why I thought I’d have a better chance of getting heard..but I’ll email then too….<3…Ronnie

      • 45. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm

        Ok I emailed The View and Oprah….<3…Ronnie

    • 46. Tigger  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm

      That’s an awesome gesture & I hope things come of it. We should pull funds to put on a private prom in the area and have the jonas brothers play!! Then the kids could thank that poor girl instead of hating her.

      I still can’t believe the school board put this all on a child!! Its borderline child abuse. They know the majority of the student body would lash out negatively at the girl. Hateful

      • 47. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm

        The school board said they canceled the prom because the other students would feel “uncomfortable”. Why should students be uncomfortable with somebody they know and go to school with?

        How much student support does she has at the school? Do the students blame her, or the school board?

    • 48. Alan E.  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:08 pm

      I want pictures if you get to that point!

    • 49. JQ  |  March 13, 2010 at 8:38 am

      A very kind gesture.

      And although I am not a clothing designer, I would love to lend a helping hand in righting this situation. In any way.

      And I think with all of the talent found on this board, that school would have the best Prom Mississippi has ever seen!

  • 50. chele  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:22 am

    sorry for not knowing this…but where do we stand timeline-wise on the trial? What and when are we expecting next? thanks.

    • 51. DonG  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:34 am

      Judge Vaughn will schedule closing arguments at the end of March or beginning of April. After that, he will take 2-3 weeks to write his opinion. So by the beginning of May we should have a decision.

    • 52. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      @chele, Here’s the court’s official statement at this time:

      (from above site) The presentation of evidence has not been completed; defendant-intervenors requested that their case remain open pending completion of discovery they are seeking from third parties. The proceedings concerning this discovery are on-going.

      The latest discover order, issued by Judge Spero, has a March 31 deadline. I think it unlikely that Walker will even set a date for closing arguments until all the evidentiary issues have been resolved and all the required evidence has been submitted.

      • 53. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:39 am

        Thanx for the link Kathleen. I am confused, can you please explain –
        “The presentation of evidence has not been completed; defendant-intervenors requested that their case remain open pending completion of discovery they are seeking from third parties. The proceedings concerning this discovery are on-going.” I thought the judge asked for all discovery items to be completed by a date in February, but I could be wrong (wouldn’t be the first time and probably not the last time). <3 David

      • 54. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        @David, regarding the ongoing discovery issues.

        The end of February deadline that you’re referring to is the date Walker set for both sides to submit their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Both sides submitted these Feb 26.

        However, you might recall that during the testimony phase of the trial, the D-Is continued to object to what they considered an inadequate response to discovery requests they had. This has to do with documents the D-Is wanted from third parties, i.e., organizations that are not parties in the law suit. Specifically, they want documents from the “No on 8” campaign. At the end of testimony phase this issue had not yet been resolved.

        On Feb 25, there was a hearing in Judge Spero’s court on the issue. Spero issued a written order on Mar 5, which outlined the scope of the documents that the “No on 8” campaign would have to turn over to D-Is.

        However, that’s not the end of it. Both sides continue to challenge the order. D-Is want more than what Spero’s order specified and the “No on 8” orgs don’t want to turn over as much as the order required.

        So these are the proceedings concerning discovery that are on-going.

  • 55. Devon  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Proof that kids are a smarter than most adults in many ways.

    • 56. bJason  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:17 pm

      That was AWESOME. My 10 year old nephew also understands this.

    • 57. bJason  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:32 pm

      Feeling a need to share. There is hope… the world is changing.

      One day my young niece told my sister (her mom) that she wanted to play “princess”. Sis said “great, let’s do it” and they started putting on clothes and jewelry befitting princesses. My nephew (age 7 or 8 at the time) said he wanted to play “princess” with them. Sis said “awesome!” and he joined in the fun. When dad got home from work my nephew ran to the door to greet him (as he always does) and said “look dad, I’m a princess”. My wonderful brother-in-law looked at his son and said “you are the most beautiful princess I have ever seen”.

      Gets me every time. I can’t tell that story enough.

      • 58. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm

        That’s a wonderful story! I keep sayin’ – it all starts with teaching the kids.

      • 59. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:24 pm

        bJason, that’s beautiful!

      • 60. Bry  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:44 pm

        -pictured this all anime-ish and stuff-

        All I can say is


    • 61. Evan  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm

      I LOVE THIS! I want a t-shirt with this kid on it.

      “…this is the VERY FIRST TIME I saw husbands and husbands!

      So that means you LOVE EACH OTHER!”

    • 62. GAYGUY  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      triedto watch, but won’t let me!!

      • 63. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:48 pm

        It looks like the video has been made private. My guess would be at the request of the kids’ parents. I was able to watch it yesterday, and am now getting the private video message.

      • 64. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm

        here’s a link to the video…<3…Ronnie:

    • 65. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:23 pm


      Be out to them when they’re young. Then they’ll become immune to the haterosexuals’ claims that we’re all about “deviant” gay male sex. Note they NEVER talk about lesbians!

      • 66. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm

        exactly…the hateros always say LGBT community but never point out Lesbians behavior…..I’m honored that my branch of the community ranks highest on their agenda….but seriously get over it…..<3….Ronnie

  • 67. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

    So you give us rights and then you take them away…you give us rights and then you take them away….wash…rinse…repeat…..wash…rinse repeat….Dry clean only….don’t mix like colors….Fu<king Hateros…..

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    Argentinean Judge Nullifies Gay Marriage
    By Editors

    "A federal judge in Buenos Aires has nullified the marriage of two men and ordered the couple to turn in any marriage licenses or documentation received from the civil registry office within 72 hours or face monetary penalties."

    (me) guys take the monetary penalties and then say "We bought our titles…now STFU"….

    "In November 2009, Alex Freye and Jose Maria di Bello were granted the right to get married, making theirs the first same-sex union in Argentina. "

    (me) Brave souls should be honored not stolen from….Fight it!!!!

    • 68. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      A commentary to the article says that the judge who nullified the marriage did not have jurisdiction in the case, therefore his ruling is nullified. The marriage is still legal.

  • 69. Santa Barbara Mom  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Very nice gesture, Ronnie! I can see Ellen making it happen. And what a great POSITIVE example that would set, especially to all the other kids.

    • 70. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:51 am

      Thank you, Santa Barbara Mom….I hope Ellen catches wind of this…..We need to show teens and kids that while your tax funded public school doesn’t care about the well being and freedom of ALL its students…there are people in this world and in this country that do……<3…Ronnie

  • 71. chele  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:05 pm


  • 72. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    O’Reilly Defends Lesbian Couples’ Kids
    By Michelle Garcia

    Bill O’Reilly…”a bit harsh, and I don’t know if Jesus would have made the same call. Kids have no power over who their parents are.”

    (me) Right on the nose…….

    “But I’m going to submit to you, that heterosexual couples — because, we’re all sinners — what if it’s a divorced couple, and the person remarries outside of the church,” O’Reilly said. “Are you going to expel those kids?” He added the same circumstances for kids whose parents run into legal troubles, or parents living out of wedlock. ”

    (me) Father Bigot goes right over those and back to the lesbian mothers….f-ing hypocrite……

    “Morris countered that it was the decision of the parents to send their children to a Catholic school, and that it then also becomes their job to teach the Catholic faith.”

    (me) excuse me?!….who the fu<k do you thing are to tell parents what to teach their children in the privacy of their own homes?….

    There is a video….You have to watch this nut job beat around the bush and not move Bill O'Reilly one bit….<3…Ronnie

    • 73. Kevin S.  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm

      Whoa… am I understanding you correctly? Bill O’Reilly is defending gay rights? I need to get to the fallout shelter.

      • 74. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm

        The times they are a changing…yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

      • 75. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:30 pm

        And here all along I thought the times, they were a-changin’ back (to paraphrase Bob Roberts.

    • 76. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm

      The priest admitted that it was a tough issue, but why couldn’t he play it safe by admitting the children?

      I was under the belief that a Catholic school would admit any child. Even a Jewish child. One of my uncles went to a Catholic school, and he wasn’t Catholic. Have their policies changed?

      The priest did not answer the questions regarding divorced couples who remarry and send their children to a Catholic school, or Catholics who marry outside of their faith and send their kids to a Catholic school. Would the church refuse to admit them?

      • 77. Kevin S.  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm

        This was a decision made on the school level, not a Catholic-wide dictatum (though I’m sure much of it agrees). Regarding Catholic schools, I went to a LaSallian high school. Students of any religion were accepted. When we had morning prayer, all that was asked of them was that they remain respectfully silent. The religion classes we took were primarily academic in nature, but accommodations were made if there was some kind of conflict. Unfortunately, I’ve come to realize that my school was very much the exception, from acceptance of other religions, to teaching evolution (creationism was never even mentioned in biology), to actually having a sexual education program that went beyond ABSTINENCE!!!

      • 78. Waxr  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:08 am

        Kevin S.,
        Thank you for the reply. It clears up some misunderstandings I had.

    • 79. AllyInHawaii  |  March 12, 2010 at 1:15 am

      Ok. There does exist a clear criteria by with these students may be asked not to return. It comes down to an issue of money. Specifically the issue of “Public Money”. If the school is funded exclusively by private money then they may write whatever policy they want. Doesn’t matter if I agree with it or not. Its their organization and their money they can do as they please. HOWEVER….if they accept ANY public money (Grants, state/federal financial aid, Education Vouchers, etc. ) then they cannot discriminate in this matter. This is the two-way street of the “Free Exercise” clause.

  • 80. Ed C  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Having read the Plaintiff and Defendants Proposed Findings of Fact, and Proposed Conclusions of Law (and I’m not a lawyer!), I find that the plaintiffs document seems to present a much stronger case. It just seems that the defendants are hoping for bias at the SCOTUS to uphold their “case”.

    • 81. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      I agree. There are so many ways this case could go – everything from what standard of review will be applied to deciding that certain evidence shouldn’t have been admitted.

      Keep in mind that plaintiffs have the burden of proof. And if the Supremes decide that Prop 8 need only withstand the most lax standard of “rational basis” review, D-Is have given the Court any number of alleged “legitimate state interests” on which to hang their hats. And the Court isn’t limited to the interests put forth by D-Is – it could just pull one out of its collective judicial ass.

      • 82. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:45 am

        “D-Is have given the Court any number of alleged “legitimate state interests” on which to hang their hats.”

        @ Kathleen, I see only one avenue the DI’s have given the Court, can you elaborate a little. I am once again confused. <3 David

      • 83. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:57 am

        @ David, if the court reviews Prop 8 under a rational basis standard, then the court only needs to find that Prop 8 is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. My statement that “D-Is have given the Court any number of alleged ‘legitimate state interests'” is referring to the long list of interests that the D-Is enumerated in their Trial Brief filed on Feb 26. See doc #605 here:

        Starting on page 6 of the brief (page 12 of the pdf doc), where it reads:
        2. Proponents will demonstrate that the traditional definition of marriage, as preserved by Proposition 8, furthers numerous vital governmental interests that would not be furthered, or would not be furthered to the same degree, by recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages. These interests include the following:

        See the list of over 20 different interests, starting with: Preserving the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman

        That’s what I meant by the “interests” D-Is had given the court.

      • 84. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 7:09 am

        Thanx, Kathleen. Wow, there is certainly a lot of court filings regarding this case! <3 David

      • 85. Bob  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:47 am

        Kathleen, what is domestic partnership? and in what ways does it differ from Marriage? sorry for the ignorance, I have been reading the list of legitimate state interests, you already have domestic partnership, I think this is similar to what we had in Canada, but it didn’t afford all the benefits we know have from our Civil Unions. I think I may have answered my own question,…

        This also may be what Olson meant when he said educate ourselves, reading these transcripts, and discussing the various issues.

      • 86. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 10:58 am

        @Bob, yes, exactly, in the US Domestic partnerships do not carry the same recognition and same rights, as does marriage. (i.e. – inheritance, etc.)

      • 87. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 11:25 am

        I just spent some time reading the D-I’s trial briefs – thanx, Kathleen. From what I am reading in these documents, it seems Boise and Olsen are arguing one matter and the
        D-I’s are arguing different points. However, to be fair, the D-I’s do bring a number of arguments, so I get your point, when you wrote:

        “There are so many ways this case could go – everything from what standard of review will be applied to deciding that certain evidence shouldn’t have been admitted.”

        Thanx again Kathleen! <3 David

    • 88. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      Well that’s all the Defense-Intervenors have, don’t they? And what’s the very definition of a judicial activist? One who rules by his bias. (I should say his or her bias but the biased justices at SCOTUS are all men.) So the hateros don’t want justices who’ll interpret thr Constitution, they want right-winged judicial activists! F***in’ hateros… totalitarians, the lot of them…

  • 89. JimiG  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Here is the link for the story on the closing or cancellation of the prom after a girl asked to take her date. Shit she should have just shown up chances are the students wouldn’t have cared but the old bigots are still in power. Personally I hope they don’t go after the school but file a civil suit against the individual who made the decisions.

    Damn this really pisses me off. Poor girl, I hope the student get their act together and have an off campus prom or something.

  • 90. JimiG  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I like that they are trying to provide a safe place for kids, but talk about separation at a young age this is just an example of segregation between straight and SS couples. So even the ACLU in protecting her rights will settle for separate rights “Bull Shit”

    The ban on same-sex dates is a violation of McMillen’s constitutional rights, said Sun, the ACLU’s senior attorney on gay rights. “We believe the law is pretty clear,” Sun said. “The school just can’t arbitrarily say you have to bring an opposite date to the prom.”

    A private prom would allow the district to get around the issue, McMillen said. “If they set it up privately they probably aren’t going to allow gay people to go and there is nothing that you can do about it,” she said.

    Other school systems have managed gay prom issues in varying ways:

    • In Alabama, the Russellville school system changed its policy prohibiting a lesbian student from attending prom with her girlfriend after the ACLU got involved, Sun said.

    • Salt Lake City-based Utah Pride Center hosts an annual “gay prom,” but executive director Valerie Larabee said districts have not enforced same-sex date prohibitions for years.

    • In Florida, Prideline Youth Services has hosted a gay prom for South Florida high school students for 15 years. Executive Director Luigi Ferrer said all schools in the Miami-Dade County district allow same-sex couples to attend prom.

    • In California, schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District allow same-sex dates.

    Students such as McMillen are “enormously courageous” for making their stands, said Virginia Uribe, founder of Project 10, a gay student advocacy group in Los Angeles.

    I like that they are trying to provide a safe place for kids, but talk about separation at a young age this is just an example of segregation

    • 91. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm

      Hi JimiG, I’m not sure what you mean by them trying to provide a safe place for kids.

      The school canceled the prom altogether rather than let the lesbian teen couple attend. They also said they hope that someone will host a private party (for all the os couples) because if it’s private, they don’t have to abide by the same equal protection standard that a public institution would be required to.

      • 92. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm

        Duh -never mind (said in my best rosanna rosanna danna voice)

        I just realized what you were commenting on – the way that other districts have resolved the issue by having so-called “gay” proms.

      • 93. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:12 pm

        The School Board knows that a private party can determine its own guest list. The boards action of cancelling the prom in favor of a privately sponsored dance was done only to deny the this girl her legal rights. I am not sure they can get away with it

        What is the position of her classmates? Are they blaming her, or the school board?

    • 94. fiona64  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm

      I was thinking the same thing.

      It’s no different from saying “Oh, the African-American kids have their own prom,” or any other group having its “own prom.”


      Fiona (who hated every minute of her stupid junior prom and declined to attend her senior prom)

  • 95. Jonathan  |  March 11, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    I think Olson and Boies are doing awesome work, and I thank them dearly for that, but even if this case makes it to the SCOTUS, I don’t think our fight will be over yet.

    Should the SCOTUS find in our favor, I would be very surprised if the anti-gay members of the religious right did not begin a campaign to try and amend the Federal Constitution in the same way they amended California’s state Constitution.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but that scares the crap out of me. With a Federal Amendment, they could do whatever they want, including the reinstatement of so called “sodomy laws.” I’m sure they would like nothing more than to be able to do to us what they are doing to the gays and lesbians in Uganda.

    I hope I’m just being paranoid!

    • 96. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

      It’s much, much more difficult to amend the US Constitution than it is California’s. In the more than 220 years since the U.S. Constitution was ratified, there have only been 27 amendments and the first 10 are the so-called Bill of Rights, ratified only a few years after the Constitution was. You can see the full list here:

      Compare that to the California Constitution’s more than 500 amendments in its approximately 130 year history. I consider it a bit of legal insanity that we can amend our state’s constitution by a simple majority vote.

      • 97. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:51 pm

        Article 1 of the California Constitution is called the “Declaration of Rights.” It lists the “inalienable rights” its citizens possess. Yet, any one of those rights can be taken away from the public by a mere majority vote. Somebody should explain to the California Supreme Court what the word “inalienable” means.

        Article 1, Section 7.5 is the prop 8 amendment. Logically, it does not give anybody rights, therefore it should not be included in a “Declaration of Rights”.

        Below are some key sections relevant to prop 8:

        SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
        and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

        SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

        SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

        SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

        SEC. 24. * * * *
        This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

    • 98. Bolt  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm

      While your fear is legitimate, there is no reason to pussyfoot around the religious assholes. They will always hate us. Whether we receive legal protection under the law or not, those rotten bastards deserve all of the negativity that they have coming to them!

      Don’t allow yourself to be bullied by a bunch of stupid, bible thumping lunatics!

      • 99. G Rod  |  March 12, 2010 at 4:15 am

        No reason to Pussyfoot
        @Jonathan, while Bolt may be able to use bolts of lightning to convert bible thumpers, zealots, religious assholes, pharisees, rotten bastards, heretics, naive and stupid bigots, as happened to tax collecting bully Saul [aka St. Paul] on his road trip to Damascus, most do not have such arrows in our quiver.
        Alternatively, Bob [above] says “Let’s not stay in our comfort zone and wait to see the outcome of the court case; let’s help Boise and Olson score a touchdown” by reaching out and ask for overt support of SSM. Bob’s outreach includes churches: one either now attends or once attended. I add: acknowledge what and when they do as their Founder commands – love one another and respect the least among you as if it were HIMSELF.

        I acknowledge the Episcopalian bishop of Washington DC for his guidance to his clergy on blessing SSM given a day or two after the first DC application for a license was granted. Send this statement to your [former] pastor.
        As Bolt said, when your cause is just, fearful as one might be, there is no reason to pussyfoot around.

      • 100. G Rod  |  March 13, 2010 at 6:58 pm


        @Bob above: you said “Olson in the last few moments, basically pleaded for help, saying changing public opinion would be very helpful to the case. I think that’s a very bold statement about the one area they’re weak. We can do things to work towards helping that in the few months we have, we got to work at it.
        But where to focus that effort?

        @Bolt,in responding to Jonathan’s statement
        “I don’t think our fight will be over yet.” rightly says ”there will always be those who hate us”… Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by that lunatic fringe.
        In short, Bolt says don’t focus on them.

        Bob and Jonathan focus energy on the movable middle. Bolt will be there to lend a hand.

    • 101. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm

      No, you’re not beiong paranoid. If the hateros can ram it through the House and Senate (and there’s no guarantee they won’t) it’ll be easy flying for approval. The legislatures will approve it, some after being required to do so by the voters… Grrrhhh… X(

    • 102. Waxr  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:06 pm

      To amend the U. S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress, plus the approval of three-fourths of the states.

      That is not easy to do.

  • 103. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Here is the Trailer for the Movie “Prom Queen: The Marc Hall Story”…..very good movie….<3…Ronnie:

    • 104. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      Thanx, Ronnie, I saw this movie on LOGO channel on DirecTV several years ago – it was great! <3 David

  • 105. Bolt  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    If they’re optimistic, I am too, but what does a stay mean?

    Victory at the appellate level –– which would legalize marriage for same-sex couples either in California or possibly in all nine states in the Ninth Circuit –– would speed Supreme Court review, since that victory would certainly be stayed, the attorneys said, until the high court ruled.

    What does it mean if a victory at the appellate level is stayed? If Walker rules in our favor, do we resume our practice of marriage equality in California?

    • 106. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      A “stay”, the way it’s used here, refers to stopping the effect of the ruling. The effect of winning this case would mean that ss couples would have the right to marry. To “stay” the ruling would mean that marriages would not be allowed to proceed until the appeal to a higher court was decided.

      In cases like this, where the rulings will almost certainly be appealed, it is typical to maintain the status quo until all appeals have been exhausted. Courts are reluctant to create just the kind of situation we already have in California where 38,000 ss couples were allowed to marry and then the right to marry was revoked.

      • 107. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm

        Oops. Not 38,000 couples – that should read 18,000.

      • 108. Bolt  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm


  • 109. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    The prom talk reminds of the comic strip For Better or for Worse, which featured a character named Lawrence who came out in a strip published in 1993. In another strip he took his boyfriend to the prom – I can’t find it on line at the moment, but Lawrence makes a bit of a speech to his friends about having to stand up for who he is, and one of the friends tells him to just sit down and join them at the table. There were the usual howls of consternation over the comic, and the gay themed strips were rejected by some papers, like this gem from 1997:

    The Kansas-based Augusta Chronicle also rejected the gay-themed strips, explaining its decision in an editorial titled: “Lawrence & Values” (August 20). Lamenting “popular culture’s assertion that sexuality has no moral boundaries,” the newspaper touted “successful efforts in recent years by primarily Christian therapists and support groups to convert homosexuals back to a healthier lifestyle.”

    Amazing how the arguments don’t change, eh?

    • 110. fiona64  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm

      I have been experiencing a *very* frustrating dialogue over on with a guy who is a “proud graduate” of Evergreen (LDS ex-gay therapy thingy). He wants to make sure that those of us who are there to support marriage equality know that he “managed to develop a sexual attraction” for his wife before they married and that they are both tremendously happy (although we only hear his side of it). I was not sure at first what he was getting at with some of his posts, and so I started asking some clarifying questions. It was finally today that he just exploded at me for daring to question the success rate and validity of “reparative therapy,” because he was a success story and those groups were his lifeline.

      I said repeatedly that I had no reason to doubt his claims of happiness (although he has definitely fallen into the category of “doth protest too much” at this point). I did also say that, as a straight woman I would prefer to have the honest gay buddy than the husband who had “managed to develop a sexual attraction” for me. (I did not get into the fact that the whole *idea* disturbed me on all kinds of levels.)

      It is amazing to me that *anyone* can delude themselves this way. :-(


      • 111. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        remember fiona64 saying is one thing and thinking is another….and his choice of words says it all….”I managed too”….like it was an exhausting task to do so…..I feel bad for his poor wife….. that he will eventually cheat on with another man…. if he hasn’t already….and you can tell him I said so….<3…Ronnie

      • 112. fiona64  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm

        Ronnie, that was exactly what I thought (and why it creeped me out). Like it was some horrific burden to be with this woman. Okay, for him it probably is — but to pretend that they are blissfully happy? She has *got* to be aware that he’s faking it. Women are not stupid.


      • 113. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm

        “It is amazing to me that *anyone* can delude themselves this way. :-(”

        I aqree Fiona, yet the Mormons are excellent at delusion and a similar thing called “illusion” – I mean how else could you get a bunch of people to believe that the Golden Plates that were delivered by Moroni, the angel, were taken back by Moroni, once Joseph Smith had translated them from an ancient toungue, not known to humanity today. <3 David

      • 114. Bob  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:37 pm

        Fiona, the important thing is that you had or hopefully still are having this dialog, I understand your frustration, but this is what Olson meant when he said we could help by educating the public, getting the word out there.
        This type of communication is very personal, and upsetting, (finally he exploded) means you touched a nerve, found a weak spot.
        Let’s challenge each other to dialogue with the other side, internet is a great tool, let’s bombard their websites with honest questions, get them to think,

      • 115. Sheryl  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:41 pm

        knew I needed to check in over there. And do remember that more than you and this “ex-gay” are observing this exchange and I bet you are way more eloquent than he is.

        I’m also reminded of something from “Good-bye I Love You’ where Carol Lynn and Gerald went for counselling and it was stated by the counsellor that there were degrees of heterosexuality and homosexuality. On a scale of 0 to 6, a 0 would never even think of having sex with someone of the same sex and a 6 wound never consider having sex with someone of the opposite sex. With that in mind, it is my opinion that those who are “changed” are those that are a 1 or maybe a 2 on that scale.

        And everyone, notice those quotes around certain words.

        you know, I think this guy might have posted before and I had an exchange or 2 with him.

        Off I go.

        Sheryl B

      • 116. Ronnie  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:59 am

        I heard about that Sheryl….its called the Kinsey Scale…..<3….Ronnie

      • 117. Bob  |  March 12, 2010 at 8:08 am

        Sheryl, you’re so right about others reading the exchange, these sites are public, one conversation like that can be seen by many, who may be just lurking,, (having a peak at the truth but too afraid to enter the fray)
        Kathleen from my understanding, went off this site, and engaged in the mormon’s for marriage site, that’s brave. the more we do this, exchange dialogue’s on each others site the more we learn.
        And yes I too remember chats with people on this site about this very subject, I think there are queer Questioning folks out there, or even one’s totally closeted that find this a safe place to ask questions.

        I agree with the scale, and thanks for pointing that out

      • 118. Bob  |  March 12, 2010 at 8:10 am

        oops sorry I meant to say Fiona, went to the other side/site

    • 119. fiona64  |  March 12, 2010 at 11:30 am

      Hi, Bob. Actually, I’ve been participating at M4M since before Prop 8 passed.

      This latest dialogue was puzzling, as I said. The guy’s goal wasn’t really clear and some of the things he said made no sense, like how M4M was attacking his family and his free agency to marry whomever he pleased. I could not see how that was so, and started asking him to clarify some of the things he said.

      When it all came out in the wash was when he said “Why do you think so many people go to ex-gay groups to get help” and I gave my opinion that it had to do with the social stigma that is thrown at LGBT people every day. That’s when his head exploded. :-/


      • 120. Bob  |  March 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm

        Fiona, that got me interested I checked out the site, and find it interesting, think I might spend some time learning things over there, thanks

      • 121. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        I’m aware there are Mormons who do not support their church’s involvement in anti-gay political campaigns and others who even take an active pro-equality position. (even met one filmmaker at a No on 8 rally in Pasadena) . But I had never been to the M4M site before.

        For anyone who hasn’t read this, and if your heart can stand the ache (be prepared for a good cry), read this blog entry:

      • 122. Sheryl  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:14 pm

        Yep, she was already at MoM when I learned about it. And always has good things to say, just like here.

        Sheryl B

  • 123. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    More giving into the Hatero Bigots but ignoring what the fans want…..

    Johnny Weir Deemed “Not Family Friendly”
    Written by Jeff Katz | Thursday, 11 March 2010

    “Smucker’s Stars On Ice has refused to allow Johnny Weir to participate in its upcoming tour (full of national, world and Olympic champs) because the skater is found to be “not family friendly.”

    (me) I feel a law suit coming on…..

    “Hmm, yet 8-year-olds love them some Miley, Gaga and Twilight…”

    (me) and Ke$ha, Dancing with the stars, so you think you can dance, Katty Perry, Adam Lambert ect ect ect…..

    “GLAAD has called upon the public to sign a petition showing its outrage with the decision and reasoning, which the watchdog group sees as veiled homophobia. “To say that Weir is “not family friendly” would be a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation,” a statement from GLAAD read. “Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater.”

    (me) the Hatero response…but god says his family is not “normal” and “traditional”…….FU<K U Hateros!!!!

    "He remains one of the most outspoken skaters today, and won an online poll asking fans 'Who would you like to see guest star on Stars on Ice?'"

    (me) so you asked your fans what they want?….. They want him….and you are going to not listen to them?…..WOW!!!….How loyal are you to the people who pay you bills….CAPITALIST!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

    • 124. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      Here’s the Link to the petition….<3…Ronnie:

      • 125. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:00 pm

        I signed the petition and added my comments:

        In striking out at Johnny Weir and calling him “not family friendly,” because of his perceived sexual orientation, you are potentially causing harm to his family! Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working.

        You have really outdone yourselves when you have to uphold “traditional family values” (code for homophobia) against a popular skater!

      • 126. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 12:07 am

        I signed.

    • 127. Sheryl  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm

      Surely, you know by now that “normal” and “traditional” when talking about family values has nothing to do with caring about and for your family. To the hateros, it only means you agree with them about homosexuality–it’s a choice, it’s evil, it will ruin society, they must be put in their place. I mean who cares about all the hetero rapists, murders, thieves, wife beaters, cheaters, liars, etc. If it weren’t for the homos the world would be a wonderful place.

      I will be signing that petition. He’s a great skater and represented the United States in the Olympics (and didn’t get fair voting there). I really don’t care what the skaters do when they are off the ice, I go to see them perform.

      sheryl B

      • 128. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:29 pm

        And actually, Sheryl, have you noticed that our best skaters are the ones who, like Johhny Weir, are ultra-comfortable in their own skin and don’t give a rat’s patootie about what anybody else thinks of them? I have seen his routines, and the closest I can come to describing the sheer beauty of them is “poetry in motion.” Johnny Weir is not a mere skating champion, he is a true artiste of the ice.

  • 129. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    CNN To Air Her Names Was Steven
    By Editors

    CNN will air the documentary Her Name Was Steven this weekend on March 13 and 14 at 8 pm ET.

    The story of Steven Stanton, a former Largo, Fla. City manager whose world came crashing down when a local reporter called to confirm a tip she’d received that Stanton had been cross-dressing and researching gender reassignment, CNN followed Stanton for more than two years for this project.

    Stanton’s career came to a halt when it was revealed he was in the process of transitioning. The film follows Stanton from the emotional press conference that ended this career through the emotional months that followed, including interview with Stanton’s wife, son and co-workers.

    (me)the trailer on the other side of the link is not working but still the info is there….<3…Ronnie

  • 130. Dieter  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm


    Senator Harry Reid’s wife and daughter in car wreck.
    Wife has a broken neck, broken back, and broken nose.

    wondering if at this end game of healthcare if the other driver was a republican?…..

  • 131. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    The legal wrangling over discovery continues.

    Attorneys for the No on 8 campaign have filed an objection to Spero’s Mar 5 discovery ruling. Here’s the outline of their objections.

    A. The Information That the Order Requires to Be Produced Is Either Entirely Irrelevant or of Such Tenuous Relevance to the Issues in the Case That It Was Clear Error to Require Production in Light of the Posture of the Case and the Substantial Burden Involved in Production
    1. The Order Applied an Incorrect Legal Standard in Determining Relevance
    2. Objectors’ Documents Are Irrelevant
    3. Even If the Documents in Question Could Have Some Relevance, It Is Vastly Outweighed by the Burden of Production.

    B. The Order’s Privilege Analysis Is Legally Erroneous

    C. In All Events, the Order Should Be Modified to Preclude Disclosure to Anyone Involved in the Proposition 8 Campaign or Who May Be Involved in a Future Political Campaign Involving the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.

    • 132. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm

      Just wanted to say…. While I find all the details of the legal bantering really interesting, I realize it may not be to others here. So if people would rather I not post updates when I receive notifications, just let me know.

      • 133. Bob  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm

        Kathleen,, I appreciate the updates, and also your understanding and explanations of the court system, i.e. your post on what a “:stay” would mean in this case, this is one request to keep on with the info and updates, with much appreciation

      • 134. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm

        Yes, Kathleen, thanx for all the updates. I find them interesting, though at times, I struggle to decipher the meanings. But, then I am known as Ditzy for a reason, I guess – LOL <3 David

      • 135. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm

        @David, you’ve never come across as ditzy to me! This stuff is dense and, even with a background in law, can be really tough to slog through. If there’s ever anything I can offer, either on the board or through email, that helps clarify anything, please don’t hesitate to ask.

      • 136. David Kimble  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:13 pm

        thanx, Kathleen – you are a jewel! <3 David

      • 137. jimig  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm

        I love your updates, I don’t always understand them and I have often asked what something means and you have always been kind enough to translate.

        Translation is the key I have no idea what that just said (hehe).

      • 138. Sheryl  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:46 pm

        I’m in the group that may not (usually does not for me) understand them but find them very interesting. Please do keep posting them.

        Sheryl B

      • 139. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:55 pm

        Thanks everyone.

        Just so you know, it’s absolutely not my intention for my posts to be incomprehensible. So if I leave information that isn’t clear, PLEASE let me know so I can try to clarify.

      • 140. Dave T  |  March 12, 2010 at 12:24 pm

        NO! Keep doing it!

        I don’t know where you find this stuff – or, perhaps more accurately, find the time to locate & read it all – but it’s a valuable source of info for the rest of us!

    • 141. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:09 pm

      All I hear is….wahhhh….wahhhh….wahhhhh….wahhhhh

      A. blah blah blah blah
      1.You applied an incorrect Legal standard though out the entire trial/
      2.The Bible and your personal opinion is when referring to the constitution and human rights.
      3.Even if the documents in question could have some relevance., Freedom of religion and separation of church and state says you cannot force people to follow “christian values” and establish a national religion.

      B. Your Hate is disgusting, unethical, inhumane, and illegal.

      C. So you want to include people who may be involved in the future?….and this has to do with you be on trial here and not us how?…..WITCH HUNTERS!!!!!!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

    • 142. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:12 pm

      wait Kathleen….did you mean no on 8 or yes on 8…I’m confused….my comments were to yes on 8….<3…Ronnie

      • 143. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:18 pm

        I meant No on 8.

        The D-Is (Yes on 8 people) want third parties (No on 8 campaign people) to produce documents. Judge Spero ordered that some of the documents had to be produced. This is the third parties (No on 8 campaign) saying they don’t agree with the discovery order.

        I know it gets a little difficult trying to keep track of who’s who with terms like plaintiffs, proponents, etc.

      • 144. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        As to sorting through all this, you ought to see how the notification arrive in my email! This one read:

        “OBJECTIONS to Objections of No on Proposition 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality: A Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Equality California to March 5, 2010 Order of Magistrate Judge Spero by ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Equality California. (Bomse, Stephen) (Filed on 3/11/2010)”

      • 145. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:21 pm

        Oh ok…. I’m going to ask that they remove those 2 comments…cool?….<3….Ronnie

      • 146. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm

        I don’t know did you get what I was saying?….<3…Ronnie

      • 147. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm

        Not a problem… I’m fine with you removing the comment.

    • 148. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      Well, another filing by the No on 8 side. This time it’s just a procedural thing having to do with stipulations the two sides have agreed on about how to proceed with their disagreement (was that confusing enough?)

      Anyway, looks like this is heading for another hearing before Judge Spero sometime in the next week or two.

      Just to clarify – this has nothing to do with deciding the basic claims in this case. This is just a battle over how much evidence the “No on 8” campaign organizations (who are not parties in the lawsuit) are going to be required to turn over to the D-Is (Yes on 8 proponents).

      • 149. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm

        This is exhausting……..<3…Ronnie

      • 150. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm

        Welcome to our adversarial judicial system. :)

      • 151. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 7:09 pm

        In the interest of accuracy, a minor correction. If this discovery battle goes to a hearing, it might not be in Spero’s court, but in Walkers.

        Also, the latest filing (yes, yet another one hot off the presses) has indicated the “No on 8” orgs’ intention to appeal the discovery order to the 9th Circuit if they lose the first round.

        Again, this is just a battle over discovery of evidence. Nothing new on the merits of the case.

      • 152. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:37 pm


        Hearing on the objections to the Mar 5 discovery order is set for Tues, March 16, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor. I think that’s Walker’s courtroom.

      • 153. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm

        “This is just a battle over how much evidence the “No on 8″ campaign organizations (who are not parties in the lawsuit) are going to be required to turn over to the D-Is (Yes on 8 proponents).” Thanx, Kathleen!

        Maybe I am missing something, but just how does this affect their case? The only thing I remember being mentioned in court about the campaign was what the “yes on 8 side said in their TV ads.”

        Any thoughts on how this might play-out?

      • 154. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm

        As to how this will play out, I really have no predictions. It does seem Walker has tended to rule in favor of more evidence rather than less, especially since this isn’t a jury trial. But there are some definite first amendment issues involved in turning over internal documents from a political campaign. There would have to be a pretty compelling issue of relevance to the case to override that interest.

        As to what effect it would have if various documents are turned over to D-Is, I can’t even speculate without knowing what’s in them. The D-Is say they want the documents “to help elucidate voter intent and the purpose of Proposition 8 and because the documents may address the political
        power of gays and lesbians.” (their words) If you recall, these issues are elements in the case.

    • 155. Ed-M  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm

      I wonder if this will go up to SCOTUS and the judicial activists will rule in favor of the Yes On 8 people and their D-I team…

      %$^&%$ hateros! Will protect their privacy above and beyond that which is proper to their own people, yet will deny the same to the opposite side when it suits them. HYPOCRITES, THE LOT OF THEM!

  • 156. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    ACLU Sues School to Reinstate Prom
    By Michelle Garcia

    “All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student,” Constance McMillen, the 18-year-old senior, said in a statement on Thursday. “But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly. This isn’t just about me and my rights anymore — now I’m fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom.”

    (me) GOOD JOB!!!!!!

    “Itawamba school officials are trying to turn Constance into the villain who called the whole thing off, and that just isn’t what happened,” said Kristy Bennett, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi. “She’s fighting for everyone to be able to enjoy the prom. The government, and that includes public schools, can’t censor someone’s free expression just because some other person might not like it.”

    (me) exactly what I said…..this school can kiss federal funding goodbye…..<3….Ronnie

  • 158. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Posted on March 11, 2010
    Newsom Running for Calif. Lt. Governor
    By Michelle Garcia

    “San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to announce Friday his plans to run for California Lieutenant Governor, according to the Los Angeles Times.”

    (me) since I’m in NJ…I don’t much about him….but I know he’s an Ally right?…..<3…Ronnie

    • 159. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:25 pm

      SUPER Ally!

      • 160. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm

        Note that the article is from 2004.

      • 161. Ronnie  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm

        Sweet…I heart allies…..<3….Ronnie

      • 162. Dieter  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:30 pm

        Atlanta Eagle Defendants Found Not Guilty

        Three of the gay men arrested during the police raid of the Atlanta Eagle have been found not guilty. The judge then threw out the charges against the other five defendants when detectives could not identify them.
        Municipal Judge Crystal Gaines said city police failed to produce evidence proving that men danced naked without permits or that the bar operators were running an unlicensed adult establishment. The decision comes as defendants and others involved with the Ponce de Leon Avenue bar are countering with a lawsuit in federal court against the city and Atlanta police officers. “We always thought from the beginning that we were charged for no reason,” bar co-owner Richard Ramey, who was not a defendant, said after the decision. “They had no right to be there,” he said of the police. The case stems from a Sept. 10 raid. Late that night, a swarm of officers detained and searched about five dozen Eagle customers, making some lie handcuffed and face down on the club’s floor. Some customers said they were not allowed to move for an hour and that they endured anti-gay slurs from the officers.
        The Atlanta City Council has issued subpoenas to 18 police officers demanding their testimony about the raid. Only one officer has complied so far. The arrested customers and employees of the Eagle are suing the city and the police department, charging them with constitutional violations.

    • 163. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 5:08 am

      Yes, Ronnie, he is a huge ally, Newsom was the mayor of San Francisco and agreed to issue marriage licenses to SS couples pre Prop8. I really hope he will run – I really like the man. Unfortunately, the right-wing has labelled him a liberal, so I don’t know what his chances are in a State election. Since Meg Whitman is running for Governor, this could be really interesting! (Chuckles) <3 David

  • 164. Dieter  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Awesome Human rights report just released covering 149 countries.

    here is the proof they asked for that gay discrimination and attacks are REAL:

    • 165. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm

      Thanks for posting this.

      The article says the report includes the United States; but I can’t find it listed. No doubt my dyslexia is creating a blind spot – can someone help point me to the USA part of the report?

      • 166. Dieter  |  March 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm

        LOL..I guess I have dyslexia as well, for I also cannot find the US. perhaps it is in one of the oddball links.

      • 167. Kathleen  |  March 11, 2010 at 7:32 pm

        I think the article got it wrong. Not only can I not find the USA, this

        one of the criticisms of the report over the years has been that we report on the whole world, except for ourselves.

        …in the fall, we’re going to be issuing a comprehensive report on the United States to the United Nations.

        from here:

        At the same link above, I found this particularly interesting:

        …there are, sadly, lots of vulnerable groups that are often on the receiving end of human rights violations – refugees, displaced people, LGBT, people who are refugees and migrants, young children, and women. These are groups that often are on the receiving end of the worst violations. And part of our challenge as the government is to both highlight what happens to those vulnerable groups, but more importantly, to try to figure out what we can do to protect them.

        I have one suggestion for protecting people: end government sanctioned discrimination against LGBT people in this country. As long as discriminatory laws are allowed to stand, the message is loud and clear to those who would do violence — “It’s okay. Here are people we don’t consider to be as valuable as the rest of our citizens.”

  • 168. Kalibra  |  March 11, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    thought i would throw a video up, as i never add clips….here we have a “doctor” for the group “concerned women of america”, and towards the end, she gets seriously owned…..amusing but sad.;photovideo


    • 169. Dieter  |  March 11, 2010 at 10:36 pm

      Watching Chaz Bono on Anderson cooper right now. awesome interview so far. very brave of Chaz.

    • 170. Sheryl  |  March 12, 2010 at 12:02 am

      Well, it froze so I didn’t get to hear the whole thing but the same old same old. if it wouldn’t have damaged my computer i would have thrown something at the Dr.

      Of course, since I was a single mother, my son’s upbringing was not the “best” according to her and she’d probably say that’s why he’s gay. Don’t know what she’d come up with for my gr. nephew who did grow up in the traditional family (and his parents did not throw him out when he came out to them in high school).

      And, how would giving equality to all harm the USA?


      Sheryl B

      • 171. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 12:09 am

        Yeah, Sheryl. There’s only so much of this garbage I can listen to in a day. After a while, it feels like self abuse to continue to expose myself to it.

  • 172. christina  |  March 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    sorry if this has been answered. but when is the decision expected

    • 173. Kathleen  |  March 12, 2010 at 3:24 pm

      Hard to say right now. Although the testimony phase of the trial ended in late January, the trial is not really over. We haven’t had closing arguments yet.

      In fact, there are still discovery battles going on over evidence that the “Yes on 8” people want the “No on 8” campaign organizations (who aren’t parties to the lawsuit) to turn over to them.

      In the interview above, I think the attorneys say they expect a decision likely in May, but I don’t know how much delay might happen as a result of the evidence disputes.

      You can watch for updates at the court’s website.
      The current statement is:
      Further information regarding the date for closing arguments will be made available on the court’s website when a date has been scheduled

      Hope that helps.

  • 174. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    • 175. Ronnie  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm

      I bought that song on Itunes….lol…..I have to get the DVD…..<3…Ronnie

      • 176. David Kimble  |  March 12, 2010 at 6:35 pm

        I bought the DVD a few months ago – it’s great! <3 David


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


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

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...