Prop 8 trial pre-decision round-up

August 4, 2010 at 7:46 am 207 comments

Cross-posted at

By Adam Bink

Some morning pre-game round-up coverage:

  • Over at the DailyKos diaries, indiemcemopants notes that the proponents of Prop 8 have already filed a motion to stay whatever decision comes down from Judge Vaughn Walker. You can read a copy of the motion here. The rationale is fascinating (bolding from indiemcemopants’ diary):

Further, absent an immediate stay of any ruling invalidating Prop 8, same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles (and possibly throughout California). Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should Proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid ab initio. Indeed, in 2004, the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, resulting in approximately 4,000 purported same-sex marriages in about one month’s time.See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 465, 467 (Cal. 2004). The California Supreme Court held that San Francisco lacked authority for its actions, and ordered that “all same-sex marriages authorized, solemnized, or registered by the city officials must be considered void and of no legal effect from their inception.”Id. at 495.2

Repeating that experience would inflict harm on the affected couples and place administrative burdens on the State.

So a stay in necessary because the Prop 8 proponents are concerned for the emotional welfare of same-sex couples. Right. Much bigger reasons around media attention to couples getting hitched and more.

  • Eden posted this yesterday at Prop8TrialTracker, but it’s worth doing so again: Chris Geidner has an excellent FAQ about what could happen today and what it means.
  • Joe Sudbay has some useful thoughts on how this impacts the Obama Administration around DOMA. For my $0.02, I think the Administration’s position and choice to appeal the Massachusetts DOMA cases, and how they present their arguments, will be very interesting if the decision goes the pro-equality way today.
  • For old time’s sake, here’s the epic Boies vs. Blankenhorn cross-examination again (parts 1 and 2).
  • What do you think the three most common words/phrases used by NOM to denounce a pro-equality ruling will be? For my money: “activist judge” “ignored a vote of the people” “shameful”. If it goes their way, I say “affirm” “marriage is between one man and one woman” “applaud”.
  • If you’re looking where to find your local Decision Day rally (there are already a few dozen planned), Rex Wockner has a rapidly updating list.
  • The hashtag of note to follow on Twitter will be #Prop8.

I will be updating this thread as more info comes in, pre-decision. The decision is expected between 1 PST and 3 PST.

UPDATE (8:20 PST): American Foundation for Equal Rights will be holding a press conference in San Francisco immediately following the decision. The press conference will be livestreamed, and I will see about hosting the video here at If it’s not possible, I will live-blog it for everyone. The press conference will be with Olson and Boies, as well as the plaintiffs and AFER President Chad Griffin. There will  also be a public event in West Hollywood at 6 PM PST.

Further update: The livestream will not be embeddable. I will live-blog it here for folks who can’t get video or will be away from the computer.

UPDATE (8:48 PST): Over Facebook, Brian Brown issues a fundraising plea:

In a few hours, we will know how Judge Walker rules in the Prop 8 case. His opinion, and especially his findings of fact – regardless of which way he rules — will shape the litigation as it moves forward on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Many expect this case ultimately to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. In less than two years – before the 2012 elections – we could be facing a Roe v. Wade­-like ruling on marriage from the Supreme Court, striking down the marriage laws of 45 states, forcing same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

I can’t put it more starkly: This case will decide the future of marriage in the United States. Losing is simply not an option.

We need your help today. If each of us do what we can – whether it’s $10 or $10,000 – we will help ensure that marriage receives the strongest possible defense at every stage of this journey. Please visit to make your most generous gift to the NOM Legal Defense Fund right now. All gifts are tax-deductible.

Thank you. Standing together, we will be victorious.


UPDATE (8:55 PST): Maggie has already started lowering expectations (via CNN) (link fixed):

“We have little doubt that this trial judge is going to knock down Prop. 8. I hope I’m proven wrong tomorrow,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “This has been a judge that looks pretty eager to make a historic decision.” She added Walker’s ruling will likely have national implications as he is a federal judge.

UPDATE (10:32 PST): For those of you on Twitter who want updates as they come, four feeds on which you can follow our coverage would be Testimony: Equality on Trial, Courage Campaign/Courage Campaign Institute, Brian Leubitz (who has a post shortly analyzing what kinds of wins/losses we could get today, and myself.

UPDATE (10:36 PST): friend Jeremy Hooper tells me NOM is going to do a video update at at 4 PM PST, then do a live chat on their site. The questions are all displayed for everyone to see, too, and last time he was forced to answer many from Jeremy.

Hmm. I think it’s time to take a look back at that “Hey, readers: what would you ask Brian Brown?” open thread. Be sure to stop on over and ask Brian a question. I’ll let you know when it’s up.

UPDATE (10:43 PST): Kathleen in the comments notes that Ted Boutrous for the plaintiffs has written a letter to Judge Walker in response to what he calls the “obviously premature” Motion to Stay the decision. Body of the letter:

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

I write on behalf of Plaintiffs in response to the obviously premature Motion to Stay filed
yesterday by Proponents (Doc #705). As the Court is aware, Proponents’ motion requests
that a stay be issued contemporaneously with the judgment. Plaintiffs intend to respond to
the stay motion, if a response is a warranted, as soon as practicable after the Court issues its
Order. If the Court is inclined to consider Proponents’ request, Plaintiffs respectfully request
the opportunity to be heard on their motion.

UPDATE (11:34 PST): The NO H8 campaign has a Twibbon on Twitter, which will add a “NO H8” logo to your avatar in the bottom right corner (examples here), tweet the action on your behalf, and follow their campaign. Cool idea. Also, my personal favorite.

Entry filed under: Background, Trial analysis.

DECISION DAY: Everything you need to know about the Prop 8 trial Prop 8 decision hours away: How broad/how narrow?

207 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Excited about today!

    • 2. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

      Excited about the gay!

      • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:52 am

        Excitedly gay! and scribing

      • 4. Franck  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

        We thank you for your consideration for our feelings, Prop 8 supporters. However, those feelings wouldn’t need to be protected if you hadn’t deprived your fellow human beings of one of their most basic rights.

        I’ll try to sleep well tonight and cross fingers so that I find news to celebrate when I come back to work tomorrow.

        – Franck P. Rabeson
        Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1139 days, as of today.

      • 5. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:49 am

        Hahah! Me too!

    • 6. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

      Day of decision! Can’t wait!

    • 7. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

      Excited about today’s gay day!

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Q. What do you think the three most common words/phrases used by NOM to denounce a pro-equality ruling will be…

    A. Of course it went their way, the Judge was gay.

    • 9. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:04 am

      A. It’s the end of the world

      : p….Ronnie

      • 10. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

        The End Days are Upon Us!!! (Said Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago!:P )

        But I would agree that this does spell the end… for NOM!!!



      • 11. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        A friend of mine wound up in ER last night and I went to pick her up (well, technically, this morning – at 2am). I saw the busy waiting room and had this thought:
        I hope they’re prepared for the onslaught today – you know, when all the fundies’ heads start exploding. :)

    • 12. Mykelb  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:30 am

      It will be chicken little “The sky is falling”

  • 13. Ed  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

    What I find amusing is that in all the anti gay sites I visit (,,, and there is no mention of the ruling coming down today. (Yes, after visiting all those sites, i do shower very often LOL) Seriously though, does anyone else find it odd that there is no mention on those sites? Even (the yes on 8 people) doesnt have anything new, their last post was from june 19 I believe. One would think Maggie would be the most outspoken. Or just maybe, they are realizing that marriage equality is inevitable and they are just basically throwing in the towel.
    Case in point, I wait tables in a college town, and as suck, a lot of my co workers are obviously college students in their 20’s…..Last night I was asking them if they care if gays are allowed to get married. Overwhelmingly their response was…..I don’t care…
    Point being, we have already won, it might just take some time for that victory to be recognized. Most of those opposed to marriage equality are a dying breed, harsh to say, but it is true.
    Fingers crossed here that justice prevails.

    PS. One thing i do find funny is that while this trial was going on, the pro pro8 people claimed that we (equality) went out and found a gay judge in order to be sympathetic to our cause…….idiots….it was a random drawing (lottery anyone?)


    • 14. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:14 am

      I think the NOM crowd are silent because they don’t want to alert their minions that the decision is coming. The only message they want them to hear is NOM’s pre-digested screed.

      • 15. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:19 am

        minions…lol! (see Despicable Me–everybody needs minions)

      • 16. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        I think Franck and any other francophoners out there will agree when I say NOM and their followers may be despicable but they are anything but mignon (cute in french)!!


    • 17. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

      Re: your post script

      Yes, because obviously WE control the courts in the state of California, which is the ONLY reason we are going to win.

      What I have been wondering for quite some time is, if NOM is so much about protecting marriage, why are NONE of their posts on any of their sites about marriage? It seems the only thing they can write is how evil and hateful the Equality community is, how we are doing such terrible things to them… it is all about us and nothing about their cause.

      Could that be because, dare I say it, they know they have lost and the gravy train is grinding to a halt and they know that even their supporters don’t care about the actual cause, all they care about is trying to “get” us?

      • 18. Linda  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:33 am


      • 19. Lymis  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:21 am

        Of course not.

        It’s because they were never about protecting marriage in the first place. This is a cash cow for them, raising money to keep the homophobia flowing.

        The only thing they care about is the gay aspects of the marriage question. They could care less about anything else affecting marriage, and really, don’t pretend to.

        This isn’t new. It’s what they’ve been about since day 1.

      • 20. Mykelb  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

        Maggie, Brian and Robert are out of a job. Next on the agenda, getting all the State’s Attorney’s General to investiage PFOX chapters and issue investigations into “ex-gay therapy” and “reparative therapy” shops practicing medicine (psychotherapy) without a license.

    • 21. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

      There is at, which appears to be affiliated with NOM.

  • 22. Ed  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:01 am

    um….suck = such
    that was not meant to be a Freudian slip LOL


    • 23. Bob  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:24 am

      was cute though, (usually a Freudian slip is just an excuse for the truuth) keep suching

  • 24. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:05 am

    I just walked past the Federal Building. Nothing of note yet, but my heart is racing right now!

  • 25. Richard W. Fitch  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I shudder to think what subing will do to my already bulging mailbox. Nonetheless………{checks follow-up : hits submit : covers eyes}

  • 26. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:19 am

    To get you through the day, some words of ‘activist judges’ gone by:

    Loving v Virginia

    The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
    The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:“

    “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”

    Courtesy of Wikeipedia

  • 27. Ed  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:20 am

    And if it really is about “protecting the children” (never really understood that, but I digress), then why did they go after the adoption laws in states where gay couples can adopt? (yes, i know about arkansas and florida) but gay couples are legally able to adopt in california…makes no sense


  • 28. Ed  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:20 am

    ugh, again, did = didn’t


  • 29. Jordan Opalanie  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:21 am

    I am currently doing a blog about it on my link. They seem to claim in their motion for a stay that the plaintiffs will suffer no substantial harm from a stay. HELLO, they are ALREADY suffering substantial harm from being only domestic partners and not being able to procure a marriage license.

    And in point number 4, they are trying to cite the passage of Prop 22 (2000) as reason for the stay. Isn’t this why we have an independent judiciary?

  • 30. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:23 am

    More activist judges:

    Lawrence v Texas

    The majority decision also held that “the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.” Holding that “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.

    Again, courtesy of Wikipedia

    • 31. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

      Sagesse, thank you for these. The courts have always been my last strong hope for reason prevailing over ignorance and hatred.

      I still worry about backlashes over this and future decions, though…

  • 32. William Davis  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:23 am

    I’m surprised nobody murdered Judge Walker in his sleep last night. After all the Anti-Abortion violence… Grotesque, but I’m actually really relieved that he’s still alive…

    • 33. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:32 am

      It would not matter at this point… well, I mean of COURSE it would matter, it would be a HUGE tragedy and I am very glad that no one did, but it would not matter to the decision, which is already written, and would be posted even if he were killed.

      But stay well and safe, Judge Walker.

  • 34. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Justice Ginsbury, from the decsion:

    Christian Legal Society v Hastings

    CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather “on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.” …. Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U. S. 558, 575 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” (emphasis added)); id., at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”)

    • 35. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:12 am

      The language that you quoted from the Christian Legal Society case is potentially huge, in that J. Ginsburg more or less equates homosexuality with membership in a class. This may signal that those in concurrence with her opinion are ready to declare LGBT people a suspect class, and so laws affecting them would be subject to strict scrutiny. It’s not there in black and white yet, but — this could signal a huge legal development to come.

      • 36. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        Good! – Felyx

  • 37. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:26 am

    This song made me feel really good this morning:

  • 38. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Judge Tauro, on ‘responsible procreation’:

    Gill v OPM

    This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA. Since the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as
    those raised by heterosexual parents. But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s
    passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers
    and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children
    more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex
    marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it
    “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

  • 39. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Judge Tauro, on protecting traditional marriage:

    Gill v OPM

    …this court cannot discern a means by
    which the federal government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses might encourage
    homosexual people to marry members of the opposite sex. And denying marriage-based
    benefits to same-sex spouses certainly bears no reasonable relation to any interest the government
    might have in making heterosexual marriages more secure.

    • 40. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:35 am

      Premature send; this continues the previous post

      What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to
      same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable.
      But to the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it “only by punishing same-sex
      couples who exercise their rights under state law.” And this the Constitution does not permit.
      “For if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at
      the very least mean” that the Constitution will not abide such “a bare congressional desire to
      harm a politically unpopular group.

  • 41. Rhonda  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

    …After the decision in the Massachusetts DOMA case is entered, Obama’s Department of Justice will have 60 days to decide whether to appeal that ruling.

  • 42. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:38 am

    I am pessimistic that Walker will probably order a stay but I hope he doesn’t. A stay would end up being drawn out for several years while the SCOTUS makes up its mind to rule in our favor.

    I sincerely hope he orders immediate relief and I hope that the Appeals court does the same.

    The argument should go as follows:

    1) Irreparable Harm is unlikely vs. the harm caused but not granting immediate relief;

    2) 18,000+ marriages exist already and were not rendered invalid ab-surdum and therefore any marriages entered into in good faith can be likewise grandfathered in by the SC.

    Pessimistic but very hopeful!

    In truth, proponents are scared that more marriages will just bolster the case so much that it will force the US to go Gay!

    Just my two Kopecks!


  • 43. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Judge Tauro, on legislating morality:

    Gill v OPM

    Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the
    objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly
    clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, “the fact that the governing majority in a State
    has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a

  • 44. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Judge Tauro, on tradition:

    Gill v OPM

    this court seriously questions whether it may even consider preservation of
    the status quo to be an “interest” independent of some legitimate governmental objective that
    preservation of the status quo might help to achieve.

  • 45. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Judge Tauro, on animus:

    Gill v OPM

    “when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and
    manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis.
    [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest…

    This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate
    purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context
    from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.”Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of
    legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the
    Constitution clearly will not permit.

    • 46. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:01 am

      That statement in itself felt like SUCH vindication for us, no?

      A clear pronouncement that this really IS all based in the heterosexual’s hatred of their gay children.

    • 47. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:13 am

      Sagesee, you are on a roll with building up our confidence by providing the direct quotes of judges from other similar court cases. It worked, I am feeling pumped up and confident, Merci!

  • 48. Mackenzie  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:47 am

    I need this to happen now!

  • 49. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:52 am

    @Sagesse, Thank you for all these wonderful quotes from decisions past.

    (bring on the email!)

    • 50. EdC  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:16 am

      Kathleen, as always, I will attempt to read the decision, then will await your translation so that I can understand it. Although I live in the SF Bay (Gay?) Area, work will prevent me from being in The City tonight, so I will wish everyone who does get to be there a safe and happy time! – Hugzz to everyone!!

    • 51. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:08 am

      Yes, thank you sagesse!


  • 52. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

    I actually agree with the logic in the bolded parts of the motion (but not with the movers’ intentions, obviously). If I had a bf in california and wanted to get married, I just wouldn’t want that cloud of uncertainty hanging over our lives while the thing continued to be litigated. Even if we were to be married in CA then moving to another state that recognizes out of state marriage, if the ruling were reversed and our marriage voided, that could cause a headache in the new state of residence as well.

    All that said, I still hope the judge shoots this one down though.

    • 53. Apel Mjausson  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:28 am

      I can see why you wouldn’t that cloud hanging over your hypothetical marriage. But that doesn’t mean the judge should deny other couples who are fine with taking the risk the right to marry. It should be up to the individuals to decide.

      • 54. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:13 pm

        Apel- your line of thinking is exactly why I wrote the last sentence of my post. :)

  • 55. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:04 am

    You’re welcome. The antidote to NOM-speak.

  • 56. Balu  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:08 am

    “Please visit to make your most generous gift to the NOM Legal Defense Fund right now. All gifts are tax-deductible.”

    Why are donations to NOM tax deductible? What non-profit service are they providing to the community to earn this deduction? Unbelievable.

    • 57. Evan  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

      This was my thought exactly. I have no freaking clue how they have 501(c)3 status when they are blatantly a lobbying organization.

      My understanding was that lobbying groups could not have nonprofit status. How are these yahoos any different from HRC? –Other than they are clearly on the wrong side of history!

    • 58. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

      I’m surprised they didn’t say “All gifts are anonymous, if we can convince the legislators we’re really the victims here.”

      I mean, that’s what their Bus Tour de Farce is really about, right?


      • 59. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:17 am

        …Bus Tour de Farce …. ha ha ha, good one!

  • 60. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:10 am

    “forcing same-sex marriage on the entire nation.” ~ Mein Fuhrer, Brian Brown (aka Brainless Brown Suit)

    Wow I didn’t know that every heterosexual is going to be forced to get a same-sex marriage…. Again with the Nazi Propaganda scare tactics. Brian Brown should be tied up & thrown in a mental hospital & never be allowed human contact again…..<3…Ronnie

    • 61. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:22 am

      He’s just using frightening words. Notice that he didn’t go into what “forcing same sex marriage on the entire nation” actually means.

      I assume that’s because he realizes that wailing about the horrific specter of loving couples raising children would make him look as stupid as everything else he’s said.

    • 62. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:53 am

      It’s the same sort of forcing that occurred when black children were finally allowed to attend white public schools.

      Oh, the horror!

    • 63. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:49 am


      He is married… that and the fact that he won’t change his suit is a virtual guarantee that he gets no human contact at all!

      (Have you seen the kids BTW? Not sure they are all his… :P )


      • 64. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:02 am

        The more I think about it, the more I think the brown suit is a ploy.

        “We need more of your money! Why, I can’t even afford to change my clothes from day-to-day!”

  • 65. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Cool! I just read the stay motion, and based on the arguments they are using, you can deduce what the ruling will be. Gay will be considered a suspect or semi-suspect class, traditional marriage definitions are irrational, and gay are discriminated against which is unconstitutional.

    • 66. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:48 am

      I’m not sure it’s a reliable predictor. Because they had to prepare this before the ruling was released, they had to cover all possibilities in their arguments.

      • 67. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:16 am

        They were not even close to covering all potential arguments. And, they lead attorney had a preview on the ruling, so they know!

  • 68. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:11 am

    The Federal Building is looming in the background (the tallest one in the back) this morning.

    • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:16 am

      Thanks for the Picture Alan E. For those of there who are stuck in our offices and homes during this, it would be nice to see images through the course of the day.

      I am so excited…I keep thinking “Are we there yet?”

      I think we are all going to be exhausted by the end of the evening. I surely know I will.

      Prayers today for trial tracker roomies.

      • 70. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:23 am

        Yeah you sure will be exhausted but think of us in The Ivory Coast Africa, London, Russia, France, Madagascar, Austrailia who are glued to our monitors and hours and hours ahead of you. It is going to be at the end of our day and the collective “we” are going to be dead tired. However I predict that a favroable ruling will wake us all up real bright :)

        If you are participating here from a country not mentioned please give a shout out.

  • 71. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:14 am

    My stomach is in knots. My head can’t focus. I can’t believe the day has arrived.

    I want to be hopeful, but as a resident of California, having gone through this in 2008, I can’t really allow any hope at the moment.

    The thought of reliving the humiliation and degradation of November 4, 2008 is something I can’t go through again.

    Hope everyone is hanging in there. You’re all in my thoughts today and every day!!!

    Love to you all.

    • 72. Beth  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:45 am

      I’m right with you Bill. In June 2008, I was reported to HR for posting a notice about the ruling and verbally abused by a manager in the employee kitchen. In Nov 2008, I received more abuse at work.

      I have to be in “hope for the best, but expect the worst” mode.

      Will be in West Hollywood tonight no matter what.

      • 73. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:01 am

        I’ll be there too!

      • 74. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:19 am

        I hope that you are pursuing legal action, Beth. And my ( lesbian) sister’s name is Beth! What a confluence of coincidences we are experiencing today!

    • 75. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:54 am

      The thought of reliving the humiliation and degradation of November 4, 2008 is something I can’t go through again.

      This is the part of this debate a lot of people don’t ‘get.’ It doesn’t matter if you aren’t looking to get married right away, it still impacts you. When the government codifies discrimination, it sends a loud and clear message that some of its law-abiding citizens are ‘less than.’ This is harmful to the people who are the target of the discrimination and it is harmful to our country.

      As David Blankenhorn affirmed in his testimony of the defense: We will be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.

      • 76. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:06 am

        The degradation and humiliation is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of those who assume control and power over our lives, no?

        I’d almost have more respect for the bigots if they’d just admit their animus. But their denial that this is animus and bigotry only goes to show that they truly believe we are sub-human.

      • 77. Dave P.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:45 am

        Actually, Bill, I think their denial that this is animus only shows that they know that it would be VERY bad for their public image if they were honest about their motives. Because their motives suck and they know it.

      • 78. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:43 am

        Thanks, Kathleen, for pointing out the reach and scope of this decision–it’s more than legalities, more than that “piece of paper” thing–it’s coming into our own, taking our place as fully human and full US citizens. This has a true “trickle down” effect — or full flood effect — on our self-perception and self-esteem! Individuals may support us or decry this ruling, but they cannot take away its effects. And bringing everyone into the fold creates a stronger nation, as you say.

    • 79. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:36 pm

      I understand your feelings completely Bill. Nov 4th 2008 my husband and I were on a plane heading home from Greece after celebrating our 25th anniversary…getting the news that Prop H8 had passed was the most upsetting thing possible.
      I remember sitting in my seat and crying my eyes out…other passangers asking me what was wrong…and seeing the looks on their faces as I told them that…..
      “We are flying back to a country that once again confirms I and those I love are nothing more than hated second class citizens”
      It was one of the worst days of my life.

      This will NOT be a repeat of that day!!!!

  • 80. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:17 am


    I am actually glad they didn’t give us two day notice…can you imagine two days waiting…

    • 81. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am

      OMG 2 whole days and I would need some meds to calm me down.

  • 82. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am

    A great preview/review at A lot of the information can be seen on P8TT, but this one has charts!

    • 83. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:02 am

      Nice succinct analysis (with charts!). He glosses over the possibility of quasi-suspect class (intermediate scrutiny) but that’s not a major omission.

  • 84. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I hate to be a nitpicker, but, withe the exception of Arizona, we here in the western states observe Daylight Savings Time. The decision will be announced between one and three o’clock, Pacific Daylight Time, PDT.

    Bringing this up only serves to make my nerves apparent today, of course. Who gives a royal rat’s behind? Freedom to marry. Have any other words brought such feelings of joy and validation? Not in recent history.

    • 85. Kevin  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:01 am

      I don’t think it’s nitpicking really. I actually just had to spend five minutes wondering if we had all turned our clocks back without anyone telling me.

  • 86. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I read Brian’s letter and Maggie’s CNN comment, and it all boils down to this.

    “Today we are going to lose this battle. We have already lost. We know we have lost. We know we will continue to lose. We know this is an unwinnable fight and there is nothing we can do about it.

    Please make a $1,000 donation now.”

    I do give them credit for having balls of solid brass.

    • 87. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:57 am

      No, no, no, it’s “Yes, we’ve lost for now, but if you keep sending us money, we promise to defeat teh ebil gheyz sometime soon! Real soon!”

      • 88. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:11 am


    • 89. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:58 am

      Donate Now! Hurry before we lose our jobs!!! We desperately need your money!!!

      (I must have your money… I don’t know HOW to get a real job! – BS Brown)


  • 90. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:42 am

    This just in via email…
    NOM finally decided to comment on Prop 8 trial ruling today.

    • 91. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:49 am

      OK, the pink bar across Brian’s eyes gave me the best laugh of the day so far.

    • 92. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

      I am so tired of their irrationality. No matter what the decision is today, at least it will be clearly communicated, with considered deliberate reason.

  • 93. Em  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

    I’m gonna have to agree with Brian Brown on this one:

    “This case will decide the future of marriage in the United States. Losing is simply not an option.”

    We need more publicity! Who from our side is going on CNN to talk about how only a handful of people knew this trial was even happening and only that handful will probably follow it through appeals because of course NOM’s side will get cameras banned from the courtroom again…?

    • 94. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:52 am

      They did not want the cameras banned for fear that our side would exact retribution on their side.

      They wanted them banned so that THEIR side couldn’t see how badly they did and start to wonder what their donations were being wasted on.

      I didn’t sleep much last night, and now I am being snarky. Please forgive me.

      • 95. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        It is International GLBTTQQIA Snark day!

        Come one! Come all! and Snark at NOMbies!

        If there was ever a day to Snark away, today is that day!

        Snark! Snark!

        Felyksnarkerpuss :P

    • 96. Evan  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:53 am

      CNN was just talking to windbag Tony Perkins, and I thought Don Lemon was doing a good job keeping him honest. He also interviewed Gary & Tony from “Gary & Tony Have a Baby” about what they thought.

  • 97. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I just commented on the blog entry where they plead for money. Naturally, comments are moderated, so I doubt mine will ever appear, as I asked how contributions can be tax deductible, since they’re a lobbying group. After all, contributions to HRC and other LGBT lobbying groups are not tax deductible. Perhaps they consider themselves exempt, since they’re clearly a religious organization?

    • 98. Alyson  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:57 am

      we should really pursue this somehow – I don’t understand how they are a non profit either. maybe that is part of the bus tour – they need to be seen to be doing some kind of public ‘education’ to maintain that status?

  • 99. Warner  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Is it just me, or does maggie gallager, mrs. divorcie/had children out of wedlock, gets a sexual thrill out of hearing her own voice promoting hatred, ignorance, and child molestion. I consider denying the children the right for their parents to be married to be a form of molesting them of their well-being.

    • 100. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:56 am

      But . . . but . . . but . . . they’re the wrong parents!


  • 101. bb  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I just read at Emptywheel - – that the decision, of sorts, has already been given. Seems that Judge Walker has a history of letting lead attorneys know prior to the “official ruling” what is to be expected. According to Emptywheel, it is very suspisious that the opposition filed a Motion to Stay at 6PM, YESTERDAY!

    I’m not fully convinced of there story, but it does look highly suspisous that the Pro-H8ers filed a Motion to Stay, um… prematurally?

    • 102. bb  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

      sorry… I meant “their story”….

    • 103. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

      That may be the case, but I don’t think we can infer that from the fact that Cooper filed a motion.

      First, I think Proponents have been prepared for a loss for quite a while. They and all their supporters have been talking in those terms for months. Secondly, I don’t think it’s that unusual for a motion for a stay to be filed in advance of the decision, especially if (as Cooper’s motion suggests), the decision could result in the immediate issuance of marriage licenses in some counties and possibly all of California.

      • 104. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:12 am

        Does Judge Walker have the option of NOT granting a stay? Or is it pretty much an unwritten (or maybe even written) rule that if someone files a stay, the stay must be granted?

      • 105. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:23 am

        He has the option to refuse the stay. But I think if he denies the stay pending appeal, I think he would at least grant the 7 day stay to give Proponents the opportunity to appeal to the 9th Circuit for the stay. He’s not required to grant any of them.

        We have a lot of new legal minds who have joined us — Anyone know why the DOMA cases in District Court in Mass were subjected to an automatic 14 day stay, while this ruling appears not to be? Is the 14 day auto stay just a local court’s rule, not required by Fed. Rules of Civ Proc?

      • 106. Kevin  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:10 am

        I can’t reply to your question below re the automatic stay. I was just wondering whether it’s tied to the relief sought.

  • 107. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Hanging on to everyone’s posts…& subscribing! Hooray for Judge Walker!

  • 108. Francis Martin  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Well what i like about this, besides the fact that this first step is done (in less than 2 years? bureaucratic yay?) is that all the people who donated money to this hateful and vile POS legislation probably wont for a while… Which means with elections and pacs giving money to candidates organizations like NOM will be short of cash.
    And that is always a good thing when fighting a long legal battle. So here is to step 1, next up step 2..

  • 109. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Dear Adam,
    In your 8:55 PST update to this post the CNN link is faulty.

    • 110. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:12 am

      I want to know who is living in PST. At my house, we’re in Daylight Savings time. :)

      • 111. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:18 am

        Native people in northern part of Canada?

      • 112. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:27 am

        Arizona does not observe DST. Apparently, their clocks are 100 years slow, as is their take on civil rights.

      • 113. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

        Okay, I should have been more specific – who in California?

      • 114. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

        NItpicker moment: the portion of the Navajo Nation within Arizona observes DST (or it did when we visited there many years ago). One state, two time zones. Not the only instance of this, I know.

      • 115. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:45 am

        @Alan E, useless Canada trivia to pass the time.

        Places in Canada that do not have DST

        Fort St. John, Charlie Lake, Taylor and Dawson Creek in British Columbia, Creston in the East Kootenays, and most of Saskatchewan (except Denare Beach and Creighton).

      • 116. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm

        @Kathleen Etc.

        It is Daylight Saving Time… saving is singular.


      • 117. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:53 pm

        I prefer to save more than one daylight.

        (In my haste to keep up, I doubt that’s the last error I’ll make)

      • 118. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:22 pm

        Hehehe… such a minor point I know. Felyx

    • 119. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

      Thanks, fixed.

  • 120. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

    “This has been a judge that looks pretty eager to make a historic decision.” – Maggie Gallagher

    Another rhetorical device…. activist judges just poo up out of nowhere to usurp the wishes of ‘the people’.

    Someone has to bring a court challenge, and a judge is assigned (randomly) to hear the evidence and reach a decision.

    NOM tries to make it sound like they’re all ambulance chasers.

    • 121. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:04 am

      That would be ”pop’.

      • 122. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

        I am sure Maggie would agree with you that the judge is pooing up to usurp the wishes of ‘the people’.


      • 123. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:11 am

        They can poo up if they are on the other side of the world or in space.

    • 124. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

      Someone should point out to Maggie that historic decisions are not always a bad thing.

      I can think of a few ethnic minorities – to say nothing of women – who would have good things to say about a judge willing to make a historic decision.

    • 125. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      I bet the NOMbskulls certainly feel poo’ed on! Gosh, I feel so bad that they feel like the world is pooing on them…

      No I don’t.

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Snark! Snark!


  • 126. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:15 am

    This is silly and superstitious, but has anybody noticed the unusual coincidence of the announcement of this decision and the beautiful display of the aurora borealis occurring over the world today?

    • 127. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:24 am

      I noticed it’s Obama’s birthday.

      • 128. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:35 am

        Kathleen, I would really love to meet you someday! And thanks for your incredibly insightful legal knowledge. You have really helped me make sense of the intricacies of out justice system

      • 129. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:41 am

        You’re welcome. Glad I could help.

    • 130. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:34 am

      A couple of huge solar flares have caused the aurora. It was in the news the other day. I wish I could see it from here, but it was overcast last night, darn it all.

  • 131. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:17 am

    San Francisco City Hall. I’ll be here later tonight for a rally =)

    (PS I get to walk by City Hall every day on my way to and from work)

    • 132. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:17 am

      This is also just a block from the Federal Building

    • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

      Silly me. I started crying looking at the picture.

      • 134. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:11 am

        You’re not the only one!

    • 135. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:34 am

      Alan E I love seeing these pictures. I particularly noticed the pic of the Federal Court House Building there is a nice lawn across the street. Look like a great spot to celebrate or protest. Thanks for the pics, keep them coming throughout the night, well I guess it is afternoon by you.

      • 136. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am

        The building you saw in the foreground is not the federal building. The one behind it is (you can just see the top of it) That’s the building the court proceedings took place. The large lawn is just in front of City Hall and is an entire block. The rally tonight will march from the Castro to the front steps of City Hall and will spill into the lawn area. I may not be able to get pictures out to you tonight, but friend me on facebook and I will get as many up there as I can:

        You have to be friends with me to see anything on my profile, basically. I will have a lot for tomorrow, though.

      • 137. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am

        Actually SG it’s still morning (for about another 22 minutes.)

  • 138. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

    “I can’t put it more starkly: This case will decide the future of marriage in the United States. Losing is simply not an option.” – BS Brown

    I feel for you Bri… YOU ARE SO BONED!!!

    Felyx :P

  • 139. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Some of my thoughts

    • 140. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

      I just subscribed to your feed on my reader =)

    • 141. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:33 am

      Kim, one reason they have to appeal is that CA is only one state, but it population of CA is huge. (Little known fact, the population of CA is larger than the population of Canada.) If they let CA stand, a very large number of US citizens will gain marriage equality. By appealing (almost certainly with a stay), they put off the day that CA falls into the marriage equality camp.

      • 142. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:39 am

        True, and they are going to affect many more states with it at the same time. And they forgo on the option to bring some better evidence into the process by forcing the civil rights movement to start additional trials on this topic. really, think about it, how quickly will a new case be getting to the same level? There are not that many obvious cases can can be litigated.

      • 143. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

        But no worry, I HOPE they appeal so we can have this issue over with as soon as possible.

    • 144. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

      Don’t forget that Andy Pugno (the lead council) is running for a seat in California, so he will surely appeal so his constituents don’t throw him under the NOM bus.

      • 145. Kim  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:50 am

        Yup, and so they will help us in a major way!

  • 146. Mykelb  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Does a judge have to issue a stay? Can they just say NO?

    • 147. Jordan Opalanie  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:35 am

      I think that judges have the discretion of whether or not to allow preliminary injunctions.


      • 148. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:30 am

        Preliminary injunctions are different than stays of a judgment, though the impact is similar. The former asks that the court stop some action before the case has been tried; the latter asks that ultimate decision in a case be stopped from taking effect.

    • 149. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:39 am

      Walker could say no, but they can then ask the 9th Circuit for a stay, and probably get it.

  • 150. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I’m really really hoping for the best, but there’s a small part of my brain saying I shouldn’t get my hopes up. It’s so difficult NOT to get my hopes up after the absurd presentation put on by the defense.

    I’m a riot of color today. I’ve got a rainbow scrunchie in my hair, rainbow earrings (that I made back in the 80s), a rainbow bracelet my little girl made for me (just because she knows Mommy loves rainbows), and a couple of rainbow anklets. A couple of people have looked at me today & asked what time the decision is coming down (i.e. they figured out quick-like why I was sporting rainbows everywhere). Another asked if I was celebrating something since I look so festive — I said I hope I will be celebrating & explained that the Prop 8 ruling is coming in today. I’m pretty SURE the unspoken comment behind her eyes was, “Interesting – I could have sworn she was straight.”

    Someone I’ve known (online) for a few years came out to me last night (and told me another friend I’ve known the same amount of time is also gay). The one who came out to me said he’s just begun coming out to people (the friend has apparently been out for a while). I told him that I’m probably one of the biggest straight allies he knows. He said he already figured that out since my Facebook profile picture is a marriage equality statement.

    I need to message him & tell him I feel quite honored that he trusted me enough to come out to me — because I really do feel honored.

  • 151. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

    “We need your help today.” – NOM

    Duh! Kinda obvious to all of us by now that you are in serious need of help!

    Fe ;`)

  • 152. Jarrell  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

    “This has been a judge that looks pretty eager to make a historic decision.”

    Typical. She’s already being accusatory even before the action. Who knows what she’s basing that on. IMHO, Judge Walker has shown he’s a very careful judge in terms of exploring evidence on all sides of the issue, and not trying to be historic, or trying to get attention, or anything else other than coming to a fair and impartial decision.

    • 153. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      Honestly, which ever way he rules, *I* think he has been VERY fair, and has put a lot of careful thought into this.

  • 154. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:29 am

    UPDATE: Letter from Ted Boutrous, attorney for Plaintiffs:

    “I write on behalf of Plaintiffs in response to the obviously premature Motion to Stay filed yesterday by Proponents (Doc #705). As the Court is aware, Proponents’ motion requests that a stay be issued contemporaneously with the judgment. Plaintiffs intend to respond to the stay motion, if a response is a warranted, as soon as practicable after the Court issues its Order. If the Court is inclined to consider Proponents’ request, Plaintiffs respectfully request the opportunity to be heard on their motion.”

    I’ll post a link to Scribd as soon as I upload it (for those who are collecting these :), but that’s the extent of the letter)

    • 155. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:35 am

      Letter (Doc 707) available here:

    • 156. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

      Which translates to:

      Your honor, we all know which way we hope you will rule, but unlike the defense, we are going to be polite enough to WAIT TILL YOU ACTUALLY DO RULE before answering it, and not be so presumptuous to assume we know better than you.

  • 157. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Hey Bri, I’ll donate $10,000… NOT!!!

    HA!!! HA!!! HAHAHA!!! HAHA!!! HAHA!!! HA!!!

                       \o/   Score!!!!  \o/

    Fe :P :D ROTFLMAO!!!

  • 158. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Hey everyone, a bunch of updates posted above. As you can imagine it’s been a seat of the pants day, so I haven’t been able to inform everyone when there is an update. Please help out your fellow readers and post a comment if you see one.

  • 159. Adam  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Evidently the Mormans are confident as they have released a statement even before the ruling is announced. This must be faith in action! God is in control of all things and he wouldn’t let them down? What am I missing.

    Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

    • 160. Adam  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:49 am

      Ahhh, that was from 2009. Well that explains that.

      • 161. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        That was the first court decision hehehe, happened last day of my classes at college and by the time I came home I was hell tired from staying up all night and my eyes hurt/were making me slightly nauseous from my new contacts.

  • 162. jc  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:43 am

    off topic, but thought those who didn’t see this might enjoy reading…

    i want the author to be my new best friend! :)

    • 163. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:48 am

      Yeah, this is a pretty awesome piece. Me and possibly Arisha will have some fun with Louis on this topic today or tomorrow.

      • 164. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:13 am

        Hi, Louis!

        Bless your heart. :-)

  • 165. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Louis reminds me of someone and for the life of me I can’t – ohhh, right, I remember now. That guy.

  • 166. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:59 am

    I just bought my ticket to go see David Boies at the Commonwealth Club tomorrow night!

      • 168. Emily  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:44 am

        De-lurking to say: thanks for the tip, and I’ll see you there! Incredible timing – someone at the Commonwealth Club must be psychic. :)

    • 169. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:03 am

      Oh my. Lost track of the timing on that one. Should be priceless.

    • 170. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:12 am


    • 171. Dave P.  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:18 pm

      ACK!! I’ve been trying to buy my ticket for a couple of days and I’m running into computer problems. I have to create an account before I can buy the ticket and I’m not getting my confirmation email so I can’t finish the process. I’ve called them but no answer….. Wish me luck!

      • 172. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        Call and order over the phone. I had problems today too (they never sent me my temp password).


      • 173. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:20 pm

        I just ordered mine over the phone this morning. Hurry before they get overrun and sell out!

      • 174. Emily  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm

        I had the same problem – it let me sign up but never emailed me the temp password. I went to the main login screen, clicked “forgot password,” and was then able to access my account via a link they emailed to me. Try it!

  • 175. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:04 am

    This just in from OneNewsNow:

  • 176. Jacob  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:05 am

    This Maggie lady is crazy! I need to give her a hug and send her back to the crazy house. She must have escaped.

    • 177. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:09 am

      See? SEE?

      “Homosexual Activists Hatch Online Plot To Assault And Kidnap Key Defenders Of Traditional Marriage!” More at 11, only on Fox!!

    • 178. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:10 pm

      Yeah, in general, anything from OneNewsNow must be taken with a grain of whiskey, vicodin or transcendental meditation… lest one’s heart give out upon witnessing the raw stupid.

  • 179. Roger  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:09 am

    As someone in a bi national, heterosexual, interracial relationship I’d question the madness of the idea that somehow allowing gays to marry would be somehow be a bad thing, the nom folks had plenty of time to honestly (under the penalty of perjury) explain their position and they didn’t, insisting on something when you have admitted that you don’t have any idea about it is just pure madness

  • 180. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:22 am

    It is going to be so hard to waiting for this decision.

  • 181. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Have I got it right that the decision should be issued in about an hour and 20 minutes. I’m in a different time zone. I know it is supposed to be 1pm to 3pm so it might be later than an hour and 20 minutes. But is 1pm California time an hour and 20 minutes form now?

    • 182. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:46 am

      Between 1-3 west coast time, which is 2-4 mountain time, 3-5 central time, 4-6 eastern time.

      • 183. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:54 am

        … or between 10pm and midnight in France.

      • 184. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm

        So that means I now have somewhere between 34 minutes and 3 hours 34 minutes of suspense left. And the suspense is killing me! I am sure I am not the only one who is feeling that, either.

    • 185. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:46 am


    • 186. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:52 am

      You’re figuring correctly, Straight Grandmother. Just under an hour and 10 minutes until 1pm.

      Theoretically, though, the decision could be made public at 2:59pm and still be in the 1pm-3pm time window.

      • 187. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:54 am

        OK… I think that 2:59 pm would be classified as cruel and unusual by the Geneva Convention!

    • 188. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:54 am

      Yes SG, it’s almost noon.

  • 189. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Adam, I wish Rick Jacobs would post a comment here. Just to break the tension.

  • 190. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:52 am

    This is ridiculous. I am sitting here humming the Jeopardy song in my head. I CANNOT do that for another hour and eight minutes… well, maybe I can…

    • 191. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:54 am

      lol – i thought about it and now it’s in my head too! but it did break the monotony and made me laugh.

    • 192. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:55 am

      I can feel my heart rate going higher and higher. I’m sitting here at work with NOTHING to do except wait.

      I think I’m gonna have to run away for a little while to swim laps & get my nerves under control.

    • 193. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:33 pm

      As for me, it is a rotation of “Battle Hymn of Love” by Kathy Mattea and Tim O’Brien, “Asking Us to Dance” by Kathy Mattea, “I Want to Be Inside Your Heaven” by Carrie Underwood, “It’s Your Love” by Time and Faith, and Carly Simon’s “Anticipation.”

  • 194. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:58 am

    I have an advantage of which you may all, officially, be jealous. I have a baby kitten curled up on my shoulder, sound asleep, purring in my ear.

    It MIGHT just be enough to keep me from running out into the street, flailing my arms and yelling like a loony.

    • 195. draNgNon  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm

      you are right, I am jealous.

      • 196. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm

        Well, I have two lesbian dogs in my house who are both spoiled rotten and are currently looking at me with those “I Love You” puppy dog eyes, and that is about the only thing keeping me anywhere near calm.
        Of course, I also have a job interview tomorrow afternoon, so that has only elevated my heart rate.

    • 197. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:04 pm

      *turns green*

      *would much rather be snuggling a kitten*

      Please pet the kitty for me!

    • 198. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      I’d keep it quiet about the kitten there was a recent thread where everyone agreed that loving kittens was gay. I might not have got that 100% correct but it was hilarious. Someone who remembers might post a link.

      • 199. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        Straight Grandmother, I am going to FB shortly and will try to send you a friend request. I wish I could be in DC on the 15th to meet your son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law and your grandchildren. But hopefully when BZ and I go up for our wedding we can meet them. They have to be wonderful young people since they have parents like you and your husband.

    • 200. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      How interesting… me too! Everyone say hi to my cat Tanzy. She loves to lay in my arm like a doll while I read all these comments!

      Felyx and Tanzy and Kevyn and Thom and Bob… One big happy really GAY family!!!

  • 201. blademaiden  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Will be at Orange County rally – I know I haven’t posted in comments or gotten to know any of you, but if you see a short-haired Asian dyke with a vest and tie, say hi!

    • 202. Michelle Evans  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      Be sure and look up Cherie and I at the event in OC. We’ll be speaking at some point, but not sure exactly how the rally is organized.

  • 203. Mykelb  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I have been waiting for a U.S. Constitutional ruling on this since they enacted that hateful DOMA and I have been actively working toward equality since I came out in 1978. I have been sorely disappointed in the Obama Administration’s lack of progress on the legislative front and have put all my eggs in the judicial basket. I can’t for any reason believe that the poor showing by the Prop 8 people would even begin to come to the level of evidence that Boies put on in the court in opposition to their “I don’t know” responses.

    • 204. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      You forgot the second half of their defense, “I don’t know AND we don’t need any evidence” I sincerely thank you for your many years of labor towards EQUALITY for all.

  • 205. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Did you know there is a new topic?

  • 206. Jordan Opalanie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    11 minutes into the window and no decision

  • 207. Jordan Opalanie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Question, would the decision be seen on this exact URL:

    Or would it be seen under Documents of Special Interest


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...