Great call with Ted Olson, Chris Dusseault, and Ted Boutrous

June 11, 2010 at 9:53 am 64 comments

By Julia Rosen

Last night we were honored to have Ted Olson and his colleagues from the American Foundation for Equal Rights on a “Courage Campaign Conversation” with hundreds of our members for an hour-long interactive call. Olson, Chris Dusseault, and Ted Boutrous took live and pre-submitted questions from people across the country about the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial.

It was a very lively discussion. Ted Olson enjoyed it so much that he asked to do it again after the closing arguments. If you missed the call, here is the recording.

We live tweeted it @EqualityOnTrial, so go check out some of the highlights.

A couple of quick notes from the call.

Chris Dusseault does not believe that Judge Walker will strike Dr. Tam’s testimony and expects he will rule in their favor.

Ted Olson repeatedly made the point that when a minority’s civil rights are voted upon they often lose and that is exactly why we have the court system as a check on those votes.

Olson also was emphatic about the importance of talking about the trial. The more conversations people have, the better for the courts and the movement.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Judge Walker’s Questions for Closing Statements Press builds before closing arguments

64 Comments Add your own

  • 1. AB  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:01 am

    When will we know for sure about Tam’s testimony!?!?

    Reply
    • 2. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:17 am

      I’ve heard an opinion that he may not rule on the outstanding evidentiary motions prior to closing arguments. I tend to disagree, but then I don’t have litigation experience, so don’t know how common it would be to proceed in that manner.

      Reply
  • 3. Monty  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I strongly agree with Olson’s point. Perhaps the most important purpose of the courts is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

    Reply
  • 5. Ronnie  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Iceland Legalizes Gay Marriage 49-0!!!!!!!!!!!

    That makes 9….Where’s Gods wrath?..oh wait..He/She/It will destroy the world when America 100% Legalizes Marriage the way it was meant to be 1Man1Man, 1Man1Woman, 1Woman1Woman, not just in some states, but in all at the Federal Level…yeah ok..because America is “Gods” country..ROTFLMGAO……<3…Ronnie

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/11/Iceland_Legalizes_Gay_Marriage/

    Reply
    • 6. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm

      Well, I did say there was no way the USA was going to be 9th. I figure that Finland and Denmark will join their Scandanavian cousins and Luxembourg will round out the Low Countries before long, so let me revise my prediction and say there’s no way the USA will be 13th. We’ve still got some states that can shift to the correct column soon, though….

      Reply
      • 7. Monty  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:48 pm

        At what point does God destroy the world for its terrible sin of letting people marry the ones they love? That’s still going to happen, right?

        Reply
      • 8. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:01 pm

        @Monty
        I think there is some quota on number of countries…
        Say, 2/3 or 3/4?
        They can change numbers and adjust predictions all they want (more like “need”), in order to prolong this agony of anti-gay bigotry… Why the hell not? In the meantime, they will be collecting contributions

        Sidenote: F nd I looked at Protect-the-freaking-Marriage-dot-com‘s blog… every entry contains desperate entreaties to provide money for the holy fight they lead against those sinful ho-mo-sessuals (not even gonna analyze the bullshit in those entries). Reminds me of all those wars that were fought so that some people could make money on uncontrolled spending. That’s what this war is about — money… money all those “protecting” organizations are earning on discrimination, and money denominations get from petrified followers who seek for someone who would justify their bigotry and hatred. It’s simply a business for them, but it’s lives for us!

        K@RU

        Reply
      • 9. Monty  |  June 11, 2010 at 3:08 pm

        Isn’t it always about the money? To be fair, though, they’re not the only ones guilty of that. The ostensibly pro-gay HRC is doing pretty much the same thing, for example.

        Reply
      • 10. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 11, 2010 at 4:33 pm

        K,

        Money, yes, but also power. If, after all the fear mongering, nothing bad happens when LBGT folks get their equal civil rights, it’s a disaster for the political power of the Religious Right. I don’t think it’s any accident that in states where marriage equality is the law of the land, the Religious Right isn’t particularly powerful. Furthermore, loss of the LGBT plank in their issues destroys the one tie that the (essentially evangelical/fundamentalist) Religious Right has with Mormons and Catholics. It will be a blow to their power like no other…and we’ll get to see it!

        Reply
      • 11. Felyx  |  June 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm

        I would chime in that it goes further than just a little political power…

        I would suggest that the ‘Religulous’ movement that began just before Reagan took office, and in fact was part of the power base that got him in office, is dying out and is now grasping at straws. Abortion and Gay rights seem to be the last ‘gut level’ issues left to exploit. There is so very little power to be culled by discourse surrounding issues of infidelity (except among the wealthy or powerful elite), prostitution or escorting (it was Rekers who got the public scrutiny, not his well mannered luggage-lifter), open marriages, pre-marital sex, condoms, gambling, dancing (yes even dancing) and every other thing about which the religulous right has ever complained.

        When GLBT etc, are no longer even a topic of discussion the religious fervor that has hampered our nation for so long will just keel over and die! People of faith will return en masse to the issues that really do build this country and make us better. Of course the big money to be had from fearful ignorance will dissipate and the exploiters will be revealed for what they are. And when that happens, the Republicans, who have been traditionally very much for the welfare of the people (go back to civil war times), I believe, will slowly return to the better values that they have traditionally (again go back more than just a few decades) espoused.

        I am not anti-spiritual or even anti-religious, but I do look forward to a more rational and empathetic era in the United States. We are good people, and for the most part have excellent motives to improve ourselves. Right now the US is taking a good hard look at itself and is making the tough decisions to do the right things. One good decision will bring others…we will overcome discrimination, we will stop our wars and I look forward to the time when we will focus entirely on human social growth and development.

        F@US

        Reply
  • 12. Ronnie  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:20 am

    I haven’t listened to it yet…but I heard it was good….I’m going to try to get to it today….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 13. Regan DuCasse  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:40 am

    A large majority such as representative compared to gay people does have an UNFAIR advantage in a popular vote.

    That’s why the opposition to marriage equality is demanding to vote in the first place! And this isn’t a situation that affects that majority directly and negatively at ALL.

    And since the historical context with regard to gay lives otherwise demonstrates hostility, fear, threat and actual violence, bigotry and discrimination, a popular vote means to exact tyranny.
    And it does.
    There is demonstrable damage to a gay person’s ability to function fully in being a responsible citizen.

    There should be no laws that interfere with an individual’s ability to do the RIGHT THING by a significant other and their children.

    And I agree with the previous post, if nothing else this IS a tyranny of the majority which is a Constitutional protection.

    Gay individual’s status as a minority hasn’t changed throughout all human history.
    And the reasons behind the opposition to marriage equality IS blatant animus.

    In other countries where marriage equality is in effect, none of what the opposition calls evidence, IS evidence.
    They have none and there is precedent that proves it.

    Every legal avenue towards marriage has been taken. Even though the CA legislature voted twice to allow it, a veto came down from the governor.

    The courts have ALWAYS been engaged to protect minorities similar to gay people. That is to say minorities or women who have long been on the receiving end of the cruelest kinds of bigotry and discrimination.
    That’s a tradition too. A storied one.
    The opposition shouldn’t be complaining that this avenue is part of the process of who requires more protection.

    And marriage itself, it’s purpose and traditions isn’t something that’s needed protection. It’s an idea and a system. NOT actual human beings.

    Reply
  • 14. Bolt  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:48 am

    It was an excellent conversation, and I would like to make a fantastic prediction. Vaughn Walker will hand down his ruling, in our favor, on Friday, the 25th, with an injunction against proposition 8, and we will experience the greatest gay pride celebration, ever.

    Reply
    • 15. AB  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:52 am

      I think it will be a Monday. People usually make big decisions after weekends.

      Reply
    • 16. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:11 am

      The attorneys think probably a few weeks after closing arguments.

      Reply
  • 17. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Sagesse posted this on the other thread. It’s a press conference call with Olson & Boies from yesterday. It answers much more in-depth questions, more in line with many of the questions that get posed here by those who’ve been closely following the trial and reading all the court filings since the end of testimony. I highly recommend it.

    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/media/videos/press-conference-call-june-10-2010/

    Reply
    • 18. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:40 am

      The difference between the two calls is that the Courage Campaign call was for this community, and the AFER call was a formal press call… the questions were from mainstream media reporters like CBS and WSJ, as well as the LGBT press.

      Reply
      • 19. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 11:42 am

        Yes. I think most of the people here who’ve been closely watching the trial have questions about the case more in line with what the press was asking

        Reply
    • 20. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm

      Both calls are good, but the tone and the questions are different.

      Reply
      • 21. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        Agreed. I just didn’t hear anything on the CC call that I hadn’t already heard before — many times. I realize it was an important call from a community perspective and many people learned things from it. I’m just saying that for those of us who’ve been watching the trial closely, there wasn’t really anything new.

        Reply
    • 22. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      Also, of interest from the press conference call — Olson said they will likely submit a written response to the “questions” in addition to addressing them during closing arguments. So we have that to look forward to on the day before arguments.

      Reply
    • 23. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm

      The Press Call was powerful because it was scripted to deliver the important messages outside the community… where change will ultimately happen. These guys are good.

      Reply
  • 24. Felyx  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    Love this article. It is long but WOW! does it really put some things into perspective. This country really practices what our Religious Right preaches. Couples, married or not, are really encouraged seriously to build family ties. The birth rate has increased, the divorce rate has decreased, couple are more likely to marry…oh, and everyone can marry regardless of gender!!! Maybe one day when the good folks of our country come back to their senses we will see more pro-action like this.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?src=me&ref=general

    Reply
  • 25. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    So glad to know that we were able to do this call, and looking forward to the next one. In addition to the recordings, will there be a transcript available at any time?

    Reply
  • 26. Bob  |  June 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Richard, I especially enjoyed hearing your voice, with that great last question. Love that American drawl.

    Reply
    • 27. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 11, 2010 at 7:09 pm

      Thanks, Bob. It is so funny because I grew up in West Virginia, and it seems that I have added the North Carolina accent in a blending of drawls that just seemed to come naturally. In fact I didn’t even know it was happening until I was talking to some friends back home on the phone and had to repeat myself because they said they could not understand my accent. Are you on Facebook, by the way?

      Reply
    • 28. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm

      ahem… uh, here in the States, we call that a Southern drawl. :) I, too, enjoyed hearing Richard’s voice.

      Reply
      • 29. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm

        Thanks, Kathleen. I still hope that transcripts will be made available. And if anybody happens to hear from Rick, Julia, Brian or anyone else at CC, I would like to find out if it is okay with CC to post links to the two calls, the CC call and the press conference call, on my blog.

        Reply
      • 30. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:45 pm

        Richard, I think the press conference call was sponsored by AFER, not CC. I don’t see any problem with linking to either one. You’re not copying the content, just pointing to the recording. If you’re not comfortable linking directly to the CC recording, then just link to this post which, in turn, has a link to the recording.

        Reply
      • 31. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm

        Thanks, Kathleen. I will do that.

        Reply
  • 32. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    UPDATE – Walker has granted Proponents’ motion to enter evidence into the record. (This is their amended motion, Doc 673)

    These are some of the documents obtained from the ACLU/EQCA through the earlier discovery orders. To see a brief description of each of the pieces of evidence admitted, refer to Doc 673, attachment 4 (also available at Scribd).

    You’ll see that the exhibits are admitted in the record as “documents subject to judicial notice.” The term judicial notice generally is used in the context of facts in a case that are recognized and considered true without having to provide testimony or other evidence to establish them. An example might be the fact that Los Angeles is in the state of California. If a party had to prove absolutely every fact in a case, it would become really cumbersome, so some are just entered into the record through judicial notice.

    I’m not really familiar with entering documents into a record through judicial notice (again, my weakness in the area of procedure), but I would imagine it just means that everyone accepts as fact that these documents are what they claim to be (e.g., an email from person A to person B) and that the copy is a true record of the original document. By entering these documents into the record this way, it eliminates the need to have yet more testimony in the trial.

    Keep in mind that just because the documents are entered, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re relevant or prove what Proponents allege they do. Those are entirely separate questions. They just become pieces of evidence that Walker will examine and decide what, if any, relevancy they have in the case.

    The ORDER is available here:

    Reply
    • 33. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      Walker has also granted Proponents’ Administrative Motion for a Sealing Order. If you recall, the evidence Proponents submitted falls into two categories – some that is entirely public and some that is public only after having portions redacted. This order protects the confidentiality of the redacted information by placing the unredacted versions of the partially redacted documents under seal (i.e., not in the public record).

      Reply
      • 34. Sheryl  |  June 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        Kathleen, I greatly appreciate your explanations.

        Reply
      • 35. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm

        Thank you, Sheryl. I’m glad I can help. I think the more we understand, the more engaged we can be in the process. I also think that understanding the legal process makes us all better advocates.

        Reply
  • 36. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    UPDATE – Walker has DENIED the Proponents’ and Dr. Tam’s requests to strike evidence and related testimony from the record.

    Reply
    • 37. Sagesse  |  June 12, 2010 at 6:12 am

      Excellent. Can they appeal and cause another delay?

      Reply
      • 38. Kathleen  |  June 12, 2010 at 11:05 am

        Can they appeal and cause another delay?

        I don’t think so. In theory, they can use this as part of their appeal to the 9th Circuit at the conclusion of the district court trial. But I don’t see how they could justify appealing it before then.

        Despite how it must appear from this case, it’s actually a bit unusual to have all of these appeals to a higher court before the case is decided. These so-called “interlocutory appeals” are generally only granted when some irreversible harm will occur if the matter isn’t decided immediately. Here, the evidence they’re contesting is already part of the public record.

        Reply
  • 39. Mary Ellen  |  June 12, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I have been following this important site and case. Thank you for helping the nation see what is happening. Please see my post and video of the happenings in New Mexico.
    http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2010/06/guest-blog-video-gay-pride-2010-30-years-of-marching-and-still-not-there.html#more

    Reply
    • 40. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 12, 2010 at 9:31 am

      Thanks for this link, Mary Ellen. May I post it in my blog on WordPress, and on my fb page? Or if you like, you can post it on my blog. Just click on my name in this comment and you will be there. Your video is what my blog is about, to tell the truth. We really need more blogs to show folks just how ordinary our lives are so that they will come to the same realization that they have about those of us who are lefties.

      Reply
      • 41. Barbara Wold  |  June 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm

        Mary Ellen’s my partner and we run the DFNM blog together. She told me to let you know you can use the video and post anywhere you’d like. That goes for everyone else too. Keep it moving!

        Reply
  • 42. Sagesse  |  June 14, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Conference, “It’s not a chOiCe – Challenging The Lies of The Ex-Gay Movement”

    Saturday, June 19, at Irvine United Congregational Church in Orange County CA

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/14/23419

    Reply
  • 43. Ed  |  June 14, 2010 at 10:11 am

    hey guys, i know what i am about to post does not deal with the call, but i have to post it somewhere….the right wing fundies have officially lost it….i really cannot believe this is one of their arguments over gay people serving in the military…..

    http://afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147495382

    be warned, it will make u mad.

    Ed

    Reply
    • 44. Ronnie  |  June 14, 2010 at 10:27 am

      the dingbat should really get his facts straight:

      “An HIV- infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.”

      Thats ASSuming all gay men are sexually active & HIV+….still there illogical references DON’T APPLY TO LESBIANS!

      face palms…Bryan (make the gays illegal) Fisher’s stupidity is astonishing….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 45. Bryan  |  June 14, 2010 at 6:36 pm

        Bryan Fisher is just really going nuts isn’t he? Well he’ll get his karmically, yes he will, ohh yes he will. Hate Group status, public disgrace, and being elevated to Phelps-levels of kookiness. He’s just the more vocal angry wing of the anti-gay movement.

        He’ll burn like the rest of them

        Reply
    • 46. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 11:05 am

      This Bryan Fisher is BRAINLESS!. Not only is he ASSuming that all gay men are HIV positive, he is ignoring the fact that if a soldier is diagnosed with HIV he or she will receive a medical discharge. You are right Ed. It made me mad. I am going to post this link on my blog so that others who need to know can see it. I am also going to send it to Joe.My.God.

      Reply
  • 47. Ed  |  June 14, 2010 at 10:29 am

    thats exactly the point ronnie….the assumption we are all positive….ugh….idiots….

    Reply
  • 48. Brett  |  June 14, 2010 at 11:52 am

    I’m really confused about some situation we may get ourselves into after this trial. If someone’s knowledgeable in this area, I would really appreciate it.

    Suppose the case is ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Prop 8 is struct down, but is done broadly such that Arizona’s (also in 9th circuit) constitutional amendment would also be unconstitutional.

    The appeal is heard, and the court rules in favor of the Defendants. In 2012, Prop 8 gets repealed by voters. At this point have the plaintiffs lost standing to continue the case, so that the effect of the ruling can continue to be binding upon all of the 9th circuit (and possible all of the country if the supreme court hears it?) My understanding is that they will lose standing since there is no longer an issue for them, and CA will get marriage, but the rest of the 9th circuit won’t.

    For the folks in Arizona, would a new case need to be started again? At that point, binding precedent would be that the laws are constitutional, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to fight that battle.

    The more I hear about things, the more I wonder if we’re better off having prop 8 stay on the books until this case completes its journey through the court, and if that doesn’t work, THEN go back to the polls to get it repealed.

    Reply
    • 49. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      If I’m understanding your premises, the answer is yes – it would mean Arizona (or any state in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction) would almost certainly be unsuccessful in challenging their bans on ss marriage.

      In theory, someone in Arizona could challenge in Arizona’s federal district court, lose, take it to the 9th Circuit, lose, and then ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case and, if it agrees to take it, see if the Supreme Court is willing to reverse. However, I think that would have very little chance of success.

      But all that said, I think the odds are way in favor that when this case (Perry) comes to the 9th Circuit, Plaintiffs will be prevail. The much more iffy proposition is what will happen when/if Perry is taken up by the US Supreme Court.

      So the much more likely scenario if Prop 8 is overturned by the voters in 2012 is that we’ll have a ruling for Plaintiffs by the 9th Circuit by then. If that is the case, then someone in Arizona (or any state in the 9th jurisdiction that prohibits ss marriage) could challenge in the local Federal District court, likely win, then win again in the 9th Circuit, then take the case to SCOTUS.

      Reply
      • 50. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm

        Kathleen, you should be a law professor. You have such a way of cutting through all the legalese and breaking this stuff down so that those of us who are laymen know what is going on. WAY TO GO! Thank you so much.

        Reply
      • 51. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm

        Richard, that’s very sweet of you to say. And I’m truly glad that I can help out in this way. But I assure you, I’m not qualified to teach law, at least not at the level of law school.

        I do enjoy teaching, though. Before going to law school, I taught mathematics at Santa Barbara City College.

        Reply
      • 52. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm

        Well, then, maybe we can get you a blog on WordPress to explain legalese to those of us who don’t speak it. I think you would do quite well at it. It is obvious that you enjoy teaching, because you do it in a way that generates a desire to learn. You impart your knowledge without an attitude. That takes a special person to be able to do that.

        Reply
      • 53. Bryan  |  June 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm

        That’s awesome Kathleen, I went to SBCC online for two years, the administration kinda boned me cause I couldn’t afford to get down there but I absolutely adore the campus, it’s so beautiful. I tried my hardest to get down there but I just couldn’t, so now I’ve taken two more years at West Valley and I’m aiming for a transfer to UCLA or possibly if that fails UCSB (which was my original goal until I heard the Psych department wasn’t so good, I’m gonna use my psych powers to get reparative therapy outlawed on a federal level)

        Reply
      • 54. Straight Dave  |  June 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm

        Kathleen, I also consider you our resident legal expert, so I have one more variation on the possibilities presented here and would like to hear your opinion.

        Suppose the 9th circuit rules for the Defendants (against us), and we appeal to SCOTUS. Then Prop 8 is voted down by CA, making the case moot. What’s to prevent an Arizona group (or any 9th circuit state) from entering the case as Plaintiff-Intervenor to carry the case forward. They clearly have just as much stake in the outcome, at least at the 9th and SCOTUS, as the original plaintiffs did while Prop 8 was in effect. Their standing seems unquestionable.

        It’s OK that they let the original plaintiffs carry the load while they still had standing, since intervening wouldn’t have added any value. But now, the AZ group would need to intervene in order to protect their rights. Would the courts allow that, or would they have needed to intervene right from the beginning? In my opinion, they had no need to intervene earlier and the upcoming need would only arise as a result of the court’s action. In addition, they could not have intervened today, since it’s still a CA district case, but could only intervene after it reached the 9th where they gain standing. Do they have a window between appealing to the 9th and appealing to SCOTUS that they have to use or forfeit it? It’s a lot better than starting over from scratch. Or do they have no intervention rights at all?

        Reply
      • 55. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 7:17 pm

        Hi Straight Dave!

        I don’t know the answer to the general question about whether a late intervention would be possible. I doubt it, but don’t know enough about procedure to answer with any authority.

        However, if Prop 8 is overturned at the ballot, and same sex couples are permitted to marry, there is no one who would have standing in this case. Keep in mind that, despite the potentially wide-reaching implications of this trial, on its face this case is about two ss couples who wish to get married in California, where they are prevented from doing so because of current law. If the law is changed so that ss couples can marry in Cali, the case is moot.

        In order to challenge a similar prohibition in another jurisdiction, and possibly carry that case to the US Supreme Court, someone would have to bring a new lawsuit in that other jurisdiction.

        Reply
      • 56. Straight Dave  |  June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm

        Hi K. !

        I’m afraid you may be right. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth with the simple reminder that this is just a CA case against Prop 8. Maybe its only other value is precedent. If so, that might well create conflicts of interest about voting down Prop 8, since my math suggests that Nov 2012 will fall between the presumptive 9th and SCOTUS rulings, unless things move really fast. (They haven’t so far)

        Reply
      • 57. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 7:59 pm

        I’m of the same opinion regarding timing. At best, I imagine we might have an answer from SCOTUS as to whether they’re willing to hear the case. But it seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would have heard oral arguments by then, let alone handed down an opinion.

        There is benefit beyond precedent. Ted Olson has pointed out that even if the case becomes moot, it has created a powerful evidentiary record that could be used in other cases.

        Reply
    • 58. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm

      Bryan, how nice to meet someone with a connection to SBCC here on the TT site.

      I have a long history with SBCC. I started school there part time in the early ’70s, but had to quit to work full time after divorcing and becoming a single mom of two young boys. My full time job was as an assistant to the Dean of Instruction at SBCC.

      Many years later, I returned to SBCC as a math student, before transferring to UCSB to get my B.Sci in math. As soon as I graduated, I began teaching part time at SBCC.

      So I have been a student, a staff member and faculty at SBCC. And to get perspective on how long it took me to get a bachelor’s degree, I became pregnant with my second son soon after starting SBCC and by the time I graduated UCSB, that son was a junior in high school!

      Yes, it’s a beautiful campus. I think CC held one of the Camp Courage events there recently. I saw the picts and immediately recognized my old stomping grounds.

      Great use of a psych degree. Best of luck to you!!!

      Reply
      • 59. HunterR.  |  June 14, 2010 at 8:55 pm

        Brian and Kathleen,
        Small world, I live in SB and attended SBCC and I also worked there. I have a love-hate affair with this town. I remember moving here from the bay area some years back and had to challenge a ban on HIV positive individuals that wanted to take scuba diving lessons there. It was an interesting experience. I ended up doing something else.
        I have posted a couple of times here since I was dealing with a romantic relationship, and I moved to Mexico a couple of times to follow my then partner. I’m back to Santa Barbara and following this case very closely. Thank you all for the comments. I don’t post to often but check this site religiously.

        Reply
      • 60. Kathleen  |  June 14, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        HunterR, nice to see another Santa Barbarian here. I loved the town when I first moved there in the late ’60s. And it turned out to be a great place to raise children. But I watched the place change dramatically during my time there. These days, it’s a challenge to find any place I recognize. I went to the French Festival in Oak Park last year and drove by one of my old residences; I had to drive around the block several times before i could locate the house I used to live in. And long before I eventually moved (which I did to attend law school in ’92) I had grown frustrated with how provencial and inbred the town had become. But my roots to SB go deep; it was friends of mine who organized the first Solstice Parade. :)

        When did you work there?

        Reply
  • 61. Andrew_WA  |  June 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    I am SO encouraged by listening to the Ted’s, Chris, Julia, and everyone else on this call.

    I am sitting here at work eating my lunch and hearing that this may become a reality in my lifetime has brought me to tears.

    My partner and I have been together for 16 wonderful years and I forsee being together until my last breath.

    Words cannot explain how grateful I am that our legal team has taken this on and how their eyes have been opened during this process. It goes to add even more support and encouragement to what they thought initially when taking this case to court.

    God bless each and every one of you. Really – I mean it. Please don’t even think that we do not know all of the late nights and hard work you are putting in on our behalf. We do know it!

    P.S. Darn you! My nose is runny and I am now red eyed at my desk with no kleenx around. I could not be happier, though! :-)

    Reply
  • 62. Jeff  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Anyone know of a non-flash version of this? Id love to listen to it in my car as an MP3 or some other open format…

    Reply
  • 63. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Can you burn it to a CD? I will try that and let you know how it goes.

    Reply
  • 64. HunterR.  |  June 14, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    @Kathleen,
    How interesting. Yes it is a beautiful place but it is a hard place to live in, specially if you are single. I’ve been in this town for ten years and looking for work here again (lost my job here in town six months ago). I was told that there was once a thriving gay community here, not anymore. It seems that the pool of available individuals here is rather small and affects people of all walks of life. A woman friend of mine was telling me that she is tired of being single here and that the options are very limited (she is moving at some point soon), I agree with her.
    At the moment I’m working, interesting enough, for the Solstice Parade. I have friends that tell me they knew or were friends to the man that started the Parade….

    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

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...