Late-night Prop 8 trial news: Brown, Plaintiffs, San Francisco City Attorney file opposition to stay

August 14, 2010 at 12:35 am 191 comments

By Eden James

It’s just after midnight and news continues to develop around the Prop 8 trial as the case moves to the 9th Circuit to determine if a stay will be lifted allowing same-sex couples to marry in California.

Here’s a quick rundown:

The San Francisco Chronicle on California Attorney General Jerry Brown filing documents late Friday…

… urging a federal appellate court to allow same-sex marriages to go forward in California on Wednesday, saying there is “overwhelming evidence” that a voter-approved ban on such marriages is unconstitutional.

Brown’s filing was one of several expected to be lodged with the court late Friday saying the marriages should go ahead. Brown, as the state’s top lawyer, said he would not appeal Walker’s ruling and argued that supporters of the same-sex marriage ban had little likelihood of success on appeal.

As usual, Kathleen in the comments is the first to post these filings:

1) Appellees’ (Plaintiffs’) Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal:

View this document on Scribd

2) Appellee City and County of San Francisco’s Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal:

View this document on Scribd

There’s a lot to digest, as Trial Trackers have been doing late tonight in this thread.

Here’s just one snippet from the plaintiffs’ filing that Lesbians Love Boies found quite interesting:

According to Proponents, the government cannot jail gay men and lesbians, but it can withdraw from them anything else that the government might describe as a benefit—including the fundamental right of marriage. Taken at face value, this argument would also permit the government to withdraw from gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote (because they might vote for persons who do not reject them as immoral), the right to receive a driver’s license (because it might permit the assertedly immoral elements to congregate), or the right to laws pro- tecting them from discrimination.But see Romer, 517 U.S. at 627.

Meanwhile, the San Jose Mercury News briefly profiles the three 9th Circuit judges who will consider the stay issue — Michael Daly Hawkins, Sidney Thomas and Edward Leavy:

Hawkins, 65, is a semiretired “senior” judge who stepped down from full-time duty earlier this year. A 1994 appointee of President Bill Clinton, Hawkins is a former Arizona U.S. attorney who is generally considered one of the 9th Circuit’s moderates.

The Montana-based Thomas, who turns 57 today, is also a Clinton appointee and for the most part regarded as liberal on many issues. Thomas is also considered one of the 9th Circuit’s leaders, and he gained national attention earlier this year when President Barack Obama interviewed him as one of the finalists for the U.S. Supreme Court slot that went to Elena Kagan.

The 81-year-old Leavy, based in Oregon, is a senior judge with a part-time caseload. He is a 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. He is a former state and federal trial judge who would likely be the most conservative member of the panel deciding whether to allow same-sex marriages to take place right away.

Finally, the New York Times opines in an editorial that it would be ideal if this case is eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in marriage equality across America:

That question is up to Ninth Circuit. But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country. Yes, there is the possibility that the judgment could be struck down, but it is sometimes necessary to take big risks to get important results, as the lawyers behind this lawsuit have demonstrated. If same-sex couples in California have the constitutional right to be part of the mainstream of society, then so should every couple in America.

Isn’t that the truth?

Entry filed under: Background, Trial analysis.

Prop 8 Stay Reaction, Part 2: The Ruling and The Reaction Prop 8 Stay Reaction, Part 3: Why I’m Angry

191 Comments Add your own

  • 1. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:46 am

    Subscribing, and hadn’t seen Plaintiff’s document.

    Reply
    • 2. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:44 am

      Wow, this was posted so late that I actually didn’t miss much in my Russia that is 11 time zones away from California.

      Reply
      • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:07 am

        And, scribing again…just cause.

        Reply
    • 4. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:32 am

      please, sir, can I have some more emails?

      Reply
      • 5. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:41 am

        What happened, Ann? Did your mailbox empty out for a few minutes?

        Reply
      • 6. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:18 am

        Now I’m picturing a little Victorian orphan holding up a laptop instead of a porridge bowl. ;)

        Reply
      • 7. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:05 am

        Very late to the Scribe Party.

        Sorry Mr. Scribe

        Reply
      • 8. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:31 am

        @LLB: What!?! You mean I wasn’t the only one who took time away from the computer to take a nap!?! OMG!

        Reply
      • 9. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:13 pm

        @Richard, no. Not exactly. I can’t remember the last time my email inbox was empty, LOL.

        Reply
      • 10. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:32 pm

        Thank you, Ann. Now I don’t feel so bad for having over 30,000 in mine, many of them from as far back as November of ’08.

        Reply
      • 11. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:33 pm

        @LLB — LOL, nap?? I wish! I had to go to a meeting. Yes, on a Saturday morning!!

        One of the joys of being a Girl Scout leader.

        That’s me, straight ally, wife, mom and Girl Scout leader.

        Since we were talking about Girl Scouts (we weren’t? Well, we are now!), I hope everyone knows that the Girl Scouts do not discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The Girl Scouts are a completely separate organization from the Boy Scouts.

        Reply
      • 12. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:35 pm

        And they have better cookies! How much is it now for three cases of Thin Mints?

        Reply
      • 13. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        Mmm… cookies…

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

        That’s good to know about the Girl Scouts. I didn’t know that.

        Reply
      • 15. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        Cookies in our Council (not all Councils have the same prices or cookies) were $4.00 a box this year, and it’s very likely the price will be the same in 2011.

        If you happen to be curious, here’s where the money goes:

        $0.84 Cost of Cookies
        $0.70 Troop Earnings & Recognitions
        $0.17 Cost of Sale
        $0.05 Opportunity Fund
        $2.24 Council Services
        $4.00 Total Per Box

        The Opportunity Fund helps girls go to camp who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford it. The girls in my troop are big into earning their own money, and last year we went to England for a big international Scout and Guide encampment. It was very cool!

        Reply
      • 16. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:09 pm

        @ Ann S.: I think I will order mine from your girls in 2011, then. Even with shipping, I think it would be cheaper than what they were charging here. But how many boxes are in a case?

        Reply
      • 17. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm

        @Richard, you are too kind.

        There are always 12 boxes in a case of cookies. Luckily, cookie season doesn’t coincide with warm weather that would melt the Thin MInts in transit. (It’s also lucky that a little melting doesn’t really hurt Thin Mints.)

        Reply
      • 18. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 15, 2010 at 8:18 am

        @ Ann S. And Thin Mints are also very delicious when you freeze them long enough to be able to crush them and sprinkle the crumbs on the top of a chocolate cake with chocolate icing.

        Reply
      • 19. Ann S.  |  August 15, 2010 at 1:48 pm

        @Richard, our Thin Mints never last long enough to make it into other baked goods.

        Reply
      • 20. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 15, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        @ Ann S.: That’s why I need three cases! Otherwise, they will all be gone within like a minute and a half.

        Reply
      • 21. Ann S.  |  August 15, 2010 at 2:00 pm

        @Richard — LOL, that’s a heck of a lot of cookies!

        Reply
      • 22. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm

        @ Ann S.: Yes, but they are like Lay’s potato chips–nobody can eat just one! At least, I haven’t met anyone yet who can stop with only one!

        Reply
  • 23. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:55 am

    All you need is love (all together now)
    All you need is love (everybody)
    All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

    Reply
    • 24. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:04 am

      Aww… :)

      Reply
    • 25. BradK  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:53 am

      That, and a marriage license.

      Reply
    • 27. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:59 pm

      How deep is your love?…How..deep..is..your..love…I really need to know?….wait wrong song….subscribing to your Love Kathleen…late I know…I <3 you…. ; ) …Ronnie

      Reply
  • 29. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Still reading the plaintiff’s submission, and then *must* go to bed. But I found this ‘interesting, page 21:

    Propo-nents’ last asserted rational basis—which follows on the heels of an energetic straw-
    man exercise in which Proponents claim, outlandishly, that the district court “attrib-
    utes anti-gay animus to all who” oppose same-sex marriage—is that the State may
    give effect to the “religious doctrine and moral precept” of those who adhere to a “tra-
    ditional definition of marriage.”

    This line of argument cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s view that
    “individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative
    classification.”

    Hmm.

    ‘…energetic straw-man exercise in which Proponents claim, outlandishly,…

    Hehe, I like that :).

    Reply
    • 30. Leo  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:53 am

      This is the part of the brief that I don’t follow. On pp. 63-65, the proponents argue that religion and morality have a legitimate role in political debate and that “the fact that the traditional definition of marriage finds support in religious doctrine and moral precept [does not] render that definition constitutionally suspect.” It’s a straw man argument, since Judge Walker didn’t say the religious support made it suspect, but that it needs to have some independent rational basis to survive scrutiny. But I fail to see where they assert giving effect to religious doctrine as a rational basis. What am I missing?

      Reply
      • 31. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:59 am

        You aren’t missing anything, Leo. It is the Prop H8 proponents who are missing something. They are missing the logic behind the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. They are missing the logic behind why their definition of morality does not have any influence on the law. They are missing the logic behind the freedom of religious expression. they are missing the logic behind the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. they are missing any concrete evidence outside of their own sense of moral superiority. In short, they are missing quite a lot when it comes to basic civics and constitutional law.

        Reply
      • 32. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm

        What am I missing?

        Nothing.

        Reply
  • 33. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Another interesting tidbit, related to standing, Page 30:

    Moreover, Proponents’ attempt to generate the specter of “chaos, confusion,
    and uncertainty” in the absence of a stay rests on the fundamentally flawed premise
    that same-sex marriages performed while this case is on appeal would be invalidated if
    the district court’s decision were eventually reversed.

    But, as the district court held,
    this is simply incorrect as a matter of California law, because, under Strauss v. Hor-
    ton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009), “married couples’ rights vest upon a lawful marriage.”
    Id. at 120-21. Because marriages performed while Proposition 8 is enjoined by court
    order would be lawful at the time they took place, a subsequent decision reversing the
    district court’s injunction could not disturb vested marriage rights.

    Neat :)

    Reply
    • 34. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:10 am

      Exactly, this was already ruled regarding the 18,000 marriages in 2008. They will be legal if the decision is overturned later on.

      No confusion, no issue, no problem.

      They just don’t want anymore icky gay couples in their marriage club.

      Reply
  • 35. Angelo  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:23 am

    subscribed

    Reply
  • 36. Vynce  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:43 am

    I’m still not clear why this case needs to go to the supreme court to be relevant at large. Couldn’t a, say, Kansan couple go to court suing that their state’s marriage laws are unconstitutional, and cite this case as precedent, or at least as informative?

    As I understand it, if it went to the supreme court and we won, then it would immediately invalidate all such similar laws around the country — but even if it stops here, it’s helpful outside, isn’t it?

    I’d love to read a B. Devine explanation of this as clear and lay-aimed as his explanations of the stay and standing issues.

    Reply
    • 37. Sam Handwich  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:02 am

      Vynce – I’m by no means an expert on the federal appeals process, but my understanding is that, for example, a 9th circuit ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would only apply to that court’s jurisdiction (the 8 most western states, including AK and HI, also Guam), until such a time as an appeal was heard, or the lower court’s ruling was simply allowed to stand, by the Supreme Court.

      Reply
      • 38. Ray in MA  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:34 am

        a 9th circuit ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would only apply to that court’s jurisdiction

        a 9th circuit ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor COULD only apply to ALL or ONLY SOME STATES IN THAT JURISDICTION.

        Reply
    • 39. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:07 am

      Vynce,

      If people were to go to court in Kansas to challenge that state’s marriage laws, they could point to this case as “persuasive authority” but this case is not “binding precent” in Kansas. What that means is that plaintiffs could say ‘See, when this district judge in California evaluated all this evidence, he concluded that the law must be unconstitutional’ BUT, because this case is not binding precedent in the Kansas judge’s jurisdiction, that judge in would not be required to come to the same legal conclusion as Walker did.

      A federal district court case (like the Prop 8 case) is not binding authority and its ruling doesn’t apply beyond the state in which it’s located. It is only after the ruling is upheld in an appeals court that it applies outside the state. So with Perry, for example, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Walker’s decision that any law which denies ss couple the right to marry is unconstitutional, then any court within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction would be required to come to this same legal conclusion. (See Sam Handwick’s comment for which states that is).

      It is only after the highest court in the country – the US Supreme Court – upholds this decision that the case becomes binding precedent that ALL courts ANYWHERE in the U.S. would be required to follow its conclusion.

      There’s a twist in all of this. Even if one of the appeals courts decides that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the court could decide this for different reasons that Walker did — and in a way that limits the impact to only California or a few other states.

      As an example, the 9th Circuit and the US Supreme Court could decide that the only reason Prop 8 is unconstitutional is because it stripped away a right from a group of people who had previously had that right. If that were to be the conclusion, then Prop 8 would be struck down, and the case would still be binding precedent in all the relevant jurisdictions, but it wouldn’t necessarily be useful in other states who had never extended the right to ss couples in the first place.

      And, finally, with all that said, even if this case goes no further than District Court, it is valuable as an example for other plaintiffs. This case has built an impressive evidentiary record — one that could be extremely helpful to anyone who wants to mount a similar challenge in other state.

      Does that answer your questions? If not, let me know an and I’ll try again.

      Reply
      • 40. BradK  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:24 am

        Thanks as always, Kathleen.

        I would think that a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs for CA could be shown to be applicable in Maine as well. While the state technically did not issue any same-sex marriage licenses, marriage equality was a law on the books from June until Prop 1 passed in November. Not only did NOM and their co-conspirators in the Catholic Corporation Church recycle the same fear-mongering and lies that helped to push Prop 8 over the edge, they recycled the very same ad copy in Maine.

        Of course this would require a Perry V.-type case to be brought in the Federal district court in Maine and likely defended in the First Circuit court of appeals.

        Reply
      • 41. SC  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm

        I have a question, if you have the time and inclination: Say the 9th District Court rules that Prop 8 was unconstitutional not just because it took away rights from a class that previously had them, but because marriage is a right that can’t be denied to a class of people. Would that mean that same sex marriage would suddenly be legal in all the states in the 9th District, or would someone have to bring a lawsuit in each state citing the case as precedent?

        Just wondering if I’ll get to see any wedding celebrations up here in Oregon as a result of the appeal. :)

        Reply
      • 42. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:22 pm

        Technically, it would require bringing a lawsuit. As a practical matter, states sometimes just choose to comply with legal precedent without having to bring suit. However, I think that happens more with Supreme Court case decisions than with decisions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal, but I could be wrong on that.

        Reply
      • 43. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        I’m not a lawyer but have been following the legal case quite closely. As I understand it, Judge Walker’s ruling strikes down Prop 8 and only affects California.

        The Ninth Circuit ruling will affect every state in the Ninth Circuit. This includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands (that bastion of gay life that it is).

        Quite a few of these states have amendments that would be struck down.

        California: evil constitutional amendment (Prop 8)
        Alaska: evil constitutional amendment
        Arizona: evil constitutional amendment
        Idaho: evil constitutional amendment
        Nevada: evil constitutional amendment
        Montana: evil constitutional amendment
        Oregon: evil constitutional amendment
        Hawaii: has a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to ban marriage (but they have not done so).

        The current issue everyone is agog about is just the stay on the permanent injunction being enforced. Regardless of what is decided next week, it will have no effect beyond Prop 8.

        Once the Ninth Circuit is done hearing the whole Perry v Schwarzenegger case, it could have broad ramifications.

        Assuming we win, and assuming the Ninth Circuit does not narrowly tailor their ruling so that it only applies to Prop 8, then all of the above amendments would be struck down. That doesn’t mean that anyone in those states (‘cept California) could run out and get married. All it means is that the amendment is struck down and now couples can file lawsuits in their state courts to pursue marital equality.

        The decision made by the Ninth Circuit could also be cited as precedent in other court cases until if and when the Supreme Court takes the case and makes its own statement on the issue. At that point the Supreme Court’s decision “overwrites” the Ninth Circuit’s and becomes binding for the entire country. (Unless, again, the Supreme Court decided to narrowly tailor it to only apply to Prop 8).

        Just remember, unless the Supreme Court does something truly unexpected and wild, Perry v Schwarzenegger will not legalize gay marriage across the country. Rather, it’ll strike down all those state constitutional amendments. Shortly thereafter you’ll see a wave of lawsuits filed across the country and within a few years a domino effect of states suddenly recognizing gay marriage.

        That’s why the Prop 8 folks are fighting to uphold Prop 8 so hard. Not to keep it illegal in California, but because it has the potential of undoing their single best weapon against same-sex marriage — state constitutional amendments.

        –Stephen

        PS, All this being said, a pro-equality ruling in Perry v Schwarzenegger would have massive ramifications in any future lawsuit on the state or federal level to establish marital equality.

        Reply
      • 44. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:51 pm

        Stephen, your comment is generally correct. I would only add this: If the US Supreme Court upholds Walker’s decision and does so in the broad terms that Walker states in his holding — that any law which denies the right of marriage to ss couples violates the US Constitution — then it won’t just be state constitutional amendments that will be struck down. It will be ANY law which denies the right to marriage.

        Reply
      • 45. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm

        Correct, Kathleen. I forgot about states with laws but not constitutional amendments, as there are none in the states that fall within the Ninth Circuit Court. (Well, I suppose there could be, but the handy listing on Lambda Legal’s site didn’t specify any. I suppose some states might have both a constitutional amendment and a law though.)

        Reply
  • 46. John  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:58 am

    “For the people who put Proposition 8 on the ballot to assert the interests of gay and lesbian couples as a basis for continuing to exclude them from marriage is a true case of the fox guarding the henhouse. “

    Reply
    • 47. John  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:00 am

      This is on page 30 as well

      Reply
  • 48. Taelyn  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:19 am

    woot, graveyard shift reading material.

    Reply
  • 49. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:45 am

    I have figured out a grounds for appeal for the Defendent Intervieners. What they need to say is,

    “Judge I am harmed because I am hetrosexual and I really love my fiancee, she is also hetrosexual. We were going to get married. However because you are permitting GLBTs to marry, she won’t marry me because she feels that the instituition of marriage has been diminshed with all those “others” now getting married. Please stop GLBT people from marrying so that my fiancee will go through with the wedding.”

    They need to show actual harm in order to gain staqnding for an appeal. One of them would have to stand up in front of the Judge with a straight face and state the above in order to gain standing for an appeal.

    This is the only way I could figure out how they could twist this to gain standing. Of course they have to overcome other hurdles as well, but not bieng able to show harm is a big one.

    Then of course the Judges would have to actually believe you, tee-hee.

    Reply
    • 50. DazedWheels  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:00 am

      LOL!

      You mean the Judges actually have to believe them?? Aw, that’s not fair!! No one ever explained that to them! They thought they could just stomp their feet really, really hard and get their way – just like they might have done when they were children.

      My advice to them? Try holding your breath next time. Yep, you try that, and I’ll just wait here. :-)

      Reply
    • 51. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm

      A judge in that case might say, “Well, I would have to evaluate your fiancee to see if in fact you would be MORE harmed by going ahead and marrying her, as she sounds idiotic.” : )

      Reply
    • 52. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:12 pm

      @ Straight Grandmother: And you said I cracked you up! I had to wait a few minutes after reading this so I could type a response! I guess I owe you another dose of laughs now, on top of the ones I already owe you.

      Reply
  • 53. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I thought of another way that they can show actual harm to gain standing and it goes right to the basis of their case.

    “Judge since you ruled in favor of da gayz my wife says marriage isn’t the same and she isn’t giving me an pro-creative activity. Judge a man can only go so long, ya know what i’m saying Judge. Put everything back the way it was so that my wife will again want to pro-create with me”

    Reply
    • 54. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:40 am

      Those might be called the “sibling rivalry harms”– “I don’t want it because my brother/sister has the same thing! Wahhhhh!” LOL

      Reply
      • 55. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:51 am

        And yet, I can remember when my nieces and nephews were little, that if one of them got a Big Bird, they all had to have the exact same size Big Bird with the exact same features. If one Big bird talked, all of them had to talk.

        Reply
      • 56. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        Want to know just how absurd this can become? When my sons were both pre-school age (they’re 20 months apart), one morning in my pre-coffee groggy state, I put out bowls of cold cereal for their breakfast. A minute later, the youngest is crying. I ask what’s wrong, “Gabe got worms in his cereal and I don’t have any.” waah waah

        Reply
  • 57. kathan  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:01 am

    i hate to even write this…but…if the 9th circuit agrees with vaughn, couldnt it be considered more adventageous for prop8 supporters NOT to appeal? do u think theyd ever do that????? if they just let these go, there are still lots of other states to funnel their hate into. if it goes to the supreme court, they could(would, i hope) lose. and then thats it for the country *crossing fingers*

    someone please make me feel better about this!!!! :)

    Reply
    • 58. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:28 am

      Zealots never volunarily quit. They do not quit until a greater force stops them. It is up to all of us to stop them.

      Reply
      • 59. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:52 am

        Exactly, SG, exactly.

        Reply
    • 60. rf  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:57 am

      well someone posted a few posts back, a group of prop8 supporters talking about letting california fall to marriage equality so they could focus on other places (forgive me i forgot who posted, but i did read it) and louis’ well wishes to the “homosexuals” if cali returns to marriage equality suggests that at least some of them are thinking that same thing–keep it in cali.

      its also possible that the proponents know they don’t have standing in the appeal process but they go on to gain sympathy and support from their public. so they can claim that the activist judges are trampling on their rights to defend traditional marriage (without actually having to do it).

      Reply
    • 61. Dave  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:21 am

      NOM has stated that even if they lose at the Supreme Court level, they still have an ‘out’. They will then push for an official US Constitutional amendment to ban it. And at THAT level there is no unConstitutionality issue. So I don’t believe that any of them will think it prudent to let the issue go.

      Reply
      • 62. Ray in MA  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:36 am

        As Rachel Maddow pointed out… amendments can take years and years … some have taken over thirty years.

        Reply
      • 63. Ray in MA  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:38 am

        Which would provide BB and the Mags LIFE TIME employment at NOM $$$$$$$

        Reply
      • 64. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:44 am

        I think that if it ever gets to the point where NOM is forced to pursue a Constitutional amendment, the rest of the country will have many more important issues on there minds. The rest of the country will also have seen by that time that the world can continue as normal even though Diane and Betty got married.

        Dave

        Reply
      • 65. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

        @Dave in ME while my heart agrees with you my head says, “Nobody thought that Prop8 would pass in California and remember Main” I do not underestimate NOM at all. That does not mean I think they will win a Federal Constitutional Amendment, but I am not going to underestimate them, not at all.

        Reply
      • 66. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:43 am

        Exactly, Ray. But then as the Yale Law professor pointed out, the effort to get the ERA began in 1923 and it has never been ratified. I am not so sure I agree with her saying that we actually have everything that the ERA was supposed to bring, however. I won’t believe that until women are being paid the same amount of money for the same jobs. To me, when two people start working for the same company with the same qualifications, and are doing the same work, then they should get the same pay. It is not fair that women are only getting paid 76% of what men make for doing the same jobs.

        Reply
      • 67. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:52 am

        @Richard, I see what you are saying about the ERA, however this was not a case of a whole class of people (women) who were hated by the heads of large bodies of religions. Women did not garner animus like GLBTs do. Think about it.

        Reply
      • 68. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:56 am

        Remember too, that tomorrow–a Sunday–every Mormon and Catholic congregation in America will be hearing (and lots of those Evangelicals too) likely erroneous sermons on why Judge Walker ruled what he ruled, and the resulting indignation fueled by prejudice is a powerful thing. We saw it in the Prop 8 campaign, and we can expect it again (and this time, they’re going to be really, really mad). We need this case to succeed. And this legal team is a blessing from those who uphold truth and justice.

        Reply
      • 69. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:09 am

        Straight Grandmother, you are right. I guess the deal with ERA not passing just sticks in my craw because I have four older sisters, and have noticed so many who are against equality for the Rainbow Tribe are also very obviously misogynists who want to see women barefoot and pregnant all the time, walking three paces behind and one pace to the left of the men. And I also feel that when women are held back in any manner, that it also holds men back as well.
        And again, thank you for being part of the P8TT family.

        Reply
      • 70. fiona64  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:40 am

        27. Straight Grandmother | August 14, 2010 at 7:52 am

        @Richard, I see what you are saying about the ERA, however this was not a case of a whole class of people (women) who were hated by the heads of large bodies of religions. Women did not garner animus like GLBTs do. Think about it.

        Not at the same level, but it does exist. The presumption that it’s okay to pay a woman less money is based on the antiquated notion that she has a husband to take care of her and that her salary is “pin money.” Some employers don’t want to hire women on the assumption that they will get pregnant and take significant amounts of time off.

        It does still exist, and the ERA (the ratification of which was primarily blocked by efforts of the Church of LDS, with scare tactics like “unisex bathrooms will be the law of the land and your daughter will have to go into the restroom where adult men are waiting” and so on) would have at least put the stop to the pay problem.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 71. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:37 am

        The failure of the ERA had much to do with promoting stereotypes of women and their role in society. I remember a woman testifying in Congress (maybe Phyllis Schlafly?), saying if the ERA was passed that we would be forced to treat women equally in the military. She didn’t want our country’s defense to depend on people who would be more concerned about whether their lipstick was smudged than protecting her fellow soldiers. This was a WOMAN saying this.

        Reply
      • 72. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:08 am

        Indeed, Kathleen. That the infection of prejudicial thought knows no limits based on whom it can infect or whom it is in turn directed against is proven over and over again.

        Reply
      • 73. AndrewPDX  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:09 am

        @Ray …As Rachel Maddow pointed out… amendments can take years and years….
        Which would provide BB and the Mags LIFE TIME employment at NOM $$$$$$$

        AHA!!! NOW IT MAKES SENSE!

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 74. Skemono  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        Intriguingly enough, one of the arguments used against the ERA was that if we forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, that would allow same-sex marriage, just as forbidding racial discrimination allowed interracial marriages.

        No, seriously:

        Mrs. Schlafly cites the testimony of Prof. Paul Freund, of Harvard Law School, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He stated:

        “Indeed, if the law must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation. …”

        So thirty years ago, conservatives recognized that laws banning gay marriage constituted sex discrimination.

        Reply
      • 75. Skemono  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm

        Er, proper link to the newspaper article.

        Reply
      • 76. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm

        This is a good time to cite Schiller’s law: In American politics, the eventual call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to solve a problem that some exasperated individual and/or group has deemed otherwise unsolvable absent a constitutional amendment.

        Corollary 1: Calling for the amendment almost never results in its adoption, and may in fact undermine the policy agenda or reduce the political capital of amendment-seekers—particularly if an individual, group or groups repeatedly claim that amendments are the only or best way to solve public policy controversies.

        Source: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/schallers-law-of-constitutional.html

        Reply
    • 77. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:15 pm

      That was my immediate response, after reading Judge Walker’s decision. If they were smart, they would just back away slowly and quietly.

      Reply
  • 78. Kalbo  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:37 am

    I, too, really want to see this case go all the way to the top. This issue is too important to continue fragmented as it is now, and this is the ideal case to bring before the Supreme Court to finally bring marriage equality to the whole nation once and for all.

    So with that in mind, I do hope that someone will find a way to appeal this! This ‘technicality’ of stopping an appeal is disheartening and anti-climactic (if that’s how it indeed plays out). :-/

    Reply
    • 79. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:10 am

      In the interests of lowering our collective blood pressure:

      1. Legal proceedings always take time, and there are detours and delays all the way.

      2. Whatever the myriad potential outcomes are, I think there’s a very very slim chance that Walker’s decision will be overturned.

      3. With marriage equality in California, 17% of the population of the US will live in states that permit LGBT citizens to marry. California alone is 12%.

      4. Even if Perry does not make it to the Supreme court, the Massachusetts cases probably will, and the equal protection argument is (more or less) the same. When section 3 of DOMA is overturned (or repealed), 17% of the population of the US will live in states where LGBT citizens have access to federal marriage benefits.

      5. If the stay is denied (not giving odds) the PR value of LGBT marriages during the appeal process will be enormous. 18,000 couples married in five months in 2008; there have been only 37,000 domestic partnerships (from memory) in all five years they’ve been available. A powerful statement that marriage is important, and still no harm will come of it.

      Even (one of the) worst case scenarios, now that Walker has ruled with the evidence record that was put up, is definitely progress.

      Going to go read now.

      Reply
      • 80. rf  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:29 am

        Plus the New Jersey case, which hasn’t really started yet. they could easily cut and paste a lot of the prop8 trial into that effort–arguing that civil unions/domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage (the NJ supreme court granted NJ marriage equality in everything but name–which hasn’t turned out so well). thats another almost 3% of the population.

        Reply
  • 81. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:41 am

    A person has to sleep sometime.. 145 missives in the inbox, and two new oppositions to read.

    Reply
  • 82. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:52 am

    I wish someone would ask and report back to us if the Plaintiffs want to stop or not. Perry & Stier and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami. I am very interested to know what is their want. Are they satisfied to win it at the “local” level and they get what they want, they get married. OR are they willing to risk their right to marriage in the hopes and probability that their case will grant marriage rights to all GLBTs. I would love to know what their thoughts are.

    Reply
    • 83. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:04 am

      I wish someone would ask and report back to us if the Plaintiffs want to stop or not. Perry & Stier and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami. I am very interested to know what is their want. Are they satisfied to win it at the “local” level and they get what they want, they get married. OR are they willing to risk their right to marriage in the hopes and probability that their case will grant marriage rights to all GLBTs. I would love to know what their thoughts are.

      In federal courts, it is the losers who control the appeal in the sense of sending it higher up to effect more than just the state being said.

      The AFER legal team has always stated that they are prepared to take their arguments for equality of gay couples all the way up to the US Supreme Court and make their case for marriage equality. They would be really dumb and incompetent (much like the Yes On Eight lawyers, ha), if they rely on solely that the D-I’s don’t have standing, but they would not be doing their jobs to advocate on their clients behalf.

      Striking down Prop 8 was always the current goal of AFER. If we had gotten a bad judge, we could have appealed the merits issues. A combination of factors will get us marriage equality in Califronia sooner. Remember, also, that there are sounds in the vicinity of California which have SRDP’s (OR, WA, NV) which are also in the 9th Circuit that AFER can attack. I live in Washington State. AFER, please come up here to Seattle and get DOMA struck down.

      Reply
      • 84. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:31 am

        Good Point, it is the loosing side tha controls if the decision is appealed or not. Well I still would like to know how the Plaintiffs feel on the matter even though as you say it is a moot point.

        Reply
      • 85. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:52 am

        Circumstances made it to where an appeal couldn’t proceed on merits. I am personally curious how they feel about it to. This is one of those situations, however that can be repeated elsewhere in the county where the government is more willing to fight.

        Reply
      • 86. Anna Bryan  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:20 am

        It’s important to remember that the Plaintiffs were selected by AFER, not vice versa. They were vetted and interviewed before they were selected to be the Plaintiffs.

        Reply
  • 87. Anonygrl  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Just read this one, and once again, WOW these guys are good. If ever I need a lawyer, I want them!!!… off to DC now, talk to you all tomorrow!

    :)

    Reply
    • 88. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:47 am

      Are all these documents being shared on the NOM blog like they are here? Or are all their readers only just reading what the NOM elders write?

      Dave

      Reply
      • 89. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:57 am

        (two guesses…and the first one will likely be right)

        Reply
  • 90. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Hello, everybody. Sorry I’m late. Just woke up about 25 minutes ago. So I take it everybody got their homework finished in time?

    Reply
    • 91. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:23 am

      LOL Richard. I was belted in and read Judge Vaughn’s decision to not grant the stay on Wednesday (or was it Thursday it’s all starting to become a blur) , it was late by me so I read it and went to sleep. Thursday and Friday kept me away from the board in the intrests in making a living, so I have a lot of homework to catch up on LOL.
      I will probably catch up jsut in time for the Rally in DC on Sunday. I hope that goes well and that we far outnumber them, and that we look them in the whites of thier eyes.

      Reply
  • 92. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Good morning everyone! I need to go read these docs, but I also wanted to appeal for help from the lawyers in this group. I’ve been dueling in our local newspaper’s letters to the editors with those who think Judge Walker is some kind of “rogue” or “activitist” judge. I’m not sure how best to answer today’s letter back to me. Help from the smartest, wittiest people I have ever had the pleasure to read, please?

    ******From 8/14 Monterey Herald:
    A section of the California Constitution and an Arizona law have each been overturned by solitary, bottom-rung federal judges.

    But, per the U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 2, only the Supreme Court has that authority! (“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”) Original jurisdiction: it means lower courts cannot touch it; not decide, not even hear.

    I must be missing something.

    Robert Kenedy
    Pebble Beach
    *******

    Can you help me explain to Robert Kennedy what he’s missing? Thank you!!

    Reply
    • 93. Lynn E  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:53 am

      I’m not a lawyer, but it appears he is misquoting the Constitution. Art. 3, Sect. 2 reads:
      “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

      Reply
      • 94. Lynn E  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:00 am

        The Article then goes on to include the section mentioned in your newspaper reply. It appears that the “…in which a state shall be a party…” is a reference to the cases mentioned in the first paragraph of the Article.

        Reply
    • 95. Anna Bryan  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:05 am

      The Supreme Court has original, but not exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving one state. Original jurisdiction means that they have the AUTHORITY and the ABILITY to try a case and hear testimony. That is why the 9th Circuit and Supreme Court will hear this case “de novo” or anew – they will be exercising their original jurisdiction in the case.

      USC code clarifies [emphasis added]:

      (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of all controversies between TWO OR MORE States.

      (b) The Supreme Court shall have original BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of:

      (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

      (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

      (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

      Good luck!

      Reply
      • 96. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:12 am

        Bee-yoo-tee-ful. Gracias! I was hoping for some Latin and some USC code. I ended up being an English major after working in a law firm for 2 summers in college back in the day…. I’m interested in legal topics, but just don’t have the proper amount of focus to sort through the texts sometimes. Appreciate using this group’s talents! Thank you.

        Reply
      • 97. Dalow  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:01 am

        Sidebar: Anna, every time your name pops up my brain registers “Anita Bryant”! No offense, please. Just a weird little quirk. It changes to reality quickly.

        Reply
      • 98. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:06 am

        They do not have original jurisdiction. A) This is an action of their own state citizens against California executives and county executives. B) De Novo review of the legal conclusions comes from case law and civil procedure.

        Reply
      • 99. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:09 am

        Dalow, your response to the name is, I believe, the desired one. Look carefully at the portrait which is “Anna”‘s avatar, then go to ‘her’ facebook page or twitter feed (be4marriage) to see how Anna has been reporting the NOM tour–“fierce supporter” of traditional marriage that she is. :)

        Examples of recent tweets:

        Brian is really upset about yesterday’s court ruling. He made Louis, the tour bus driver, stop at Wal-Mart to buy a whiteboard. #no4m #tcot

        Brian (@briansbrown) is pissed at Judge Walker that he wanted me to send this out #no4m #marriagetour #lgbt #prop8 http://twitpic.com/2edftc

        Today’s marriage rally was so utterly dull, I forgot to tweet about it. I doubt you would have been interested anyway. #no4m #marriagetour

        If we say that Sunday’s rally is a TeaParty instead of a Marriage Rally, will people actually come? #no4m #marriagetour

        Reply
      • 100. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:55 am

        I think I love Anna Bryan! (So what am I so afraid of??)

        As for the “I QUIT” whiteboard, B.S. Brown seems to be copying some else on that! ;o)
        http://thechive.com/2010/08/10/girl-quits-her-job-on-dry-erase-board-emails-entire-office-33-photos/

        Dave

        Reply
      • 101. Sheryl Carver  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:29 pm

        Dalow, Anna,

        Me, too. (Re: unwanted “popup” of Anita Bryant’s name.)

        Probably due to my age, as her “crusade” was the first time I realized just how bad homophobia could be. I grew up in a small town in Maine & didn’t realize I was bi- until I was in my 20s. So any previous homophobic news, if I’d even heard about it, would have just sailed right on by my awareness.

        I will work really hard at replacing that pop-up, Anna!

        <3

        Reply
      • 102. Sheryl Carver  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm

        Kathleen,

        I replied before I took your advice & followed the trail.

        The pop-up is back in place.

        Wonder if Anna is possibly reading anything here that might get her to reconsider her views on marriage equality?

        Reply
      • 103. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm

        Anna Bryan/be4marriage is a parody. The tweets are ridiculous, on purpose, to show how ridiculous marriage equality opponents are.

        Reply
      • 104. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:22 pm

        It may sound counter intuitive, but I love that “Anna Bryan” makes me think of Anita Bryant. Typically, yes, the thought of Anita Bryant makes me want to retch, but the subsequent contrast of that with where Anna Bryan comes from feels great! :)

        Reply
    • 105. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm

      Re: Vaughn Walker being some rogue “activist judge”, I like to point out he was a corporate attorney for years before being nominated to the bench. Not a group renowned for liberal activism! (PS: Pacific Grove is my home town! I was just there for the Pet Parade! The residents of Pebble Beach are primarily rich, elderly conservatives.

      Reply
  • 106. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Whoops. Forgot to subscribe to see answers….

    Reply
    • 107. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:13 am

      And forgot to check the box AGAIN. Sigh. More coffee.

      Reply
  • 108. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

    And the Plaintiffs brief is exactly 35 pages.

    Reply
    • 109. JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA)  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:38 am

      And submitted at 10:54PM for the 11PM deadline. Perfect! They used their time wisely, it seems to me in reading this well-crafted document…..

      Reply
  • 110. Don in Texas  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Just a point of interest about how long it takes for constitutional amendments to become effective:

    Amendment #27 took more than 200 YEARS to be ratified! It requires that an election for members of the House must occur before a Congressionally-passed pay raise takes effect.

    During the state ratifying conventions as well as during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates insisted on a Bill of Rights to be included in the new Constitution. According to some historians, at least 88 amendments were proposed in these conventions. The first House of Representatives refined this number to just 18 and sent them to the Senate, which whittled them down to the original 12. These 12 passed the House and were sent to the states for ratification.

    Amendment 27 was the second of the original 12 amendments proposed in the first Congress. The first one, changing the ratio of congressional representation, was never ratified. The last ten — #3 through #12 — were ratified on December 15, 1791. We know them as the Bill of Rights.

    Reply
    • 111. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:03 am

      Thank you, Don. You have once again proven one of my main points about the value of the P8TT family. We can all learn from one another. Glad to have you here.

      Reply
    • 112. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:22 am

      Don I see what you are saying, however the issue of pay raises just doesn’t campare to the knee jerk reaction of GLBTs. When NOM and ProtectMarriage.com and all the other ones start to gin up their donation solicitations they will get a lot of donations. We know that they know how to scare the public, they have been successful in Initiatives and we have not. They brag about getting people elected who agree with them, they publically acknowledge this and they warn us how much money they will spend this year to do that.

      There is not a strong overriding majority of Americans who support Equal Rights for GLBTs. Don’t underestimate NOM is all I’m saying. All their money is instrumental in swaying public opinion, and votes. Even today our own President supports their next Constituitinal Amendment, “No Gender Neutral Marriage.” We cannot underestimate the animus towards GLBTs, the most we can hope for is that it takes long enough so that the younger generations reach voting age.

      As of today, only 18 States permit a Same Sex Couples to adopt children together, not a majority at all, in fact pretty pathetic. And these states that do not even permit SS couples to adopt, you don’t think it would be pretty easy for them to logically follow up with agreeing to a Federal Constituitional Amendment denying Same Sex Marriage?

      At first I laughed at Brian S Brown, the Biggest Bigot in America, when he floated the Federal Constituitional Amendment idea. I have sobered up a little since then. I think our perspectives as members of this forum are shaped by where we live and how our lives are impacted. If you are fortunate enough to live in a state with liberal pro equalty laws you kind of get a false sense that the rest of the nation is like this as well. It ain’t like that everywhere.

      If there was a vote today I can guarantee you that the state of Virginia would vote FOR a Constituitional Amendment making marriage only between hetrosexual couples.

      Think Florida with all those old people, where a GLBT person may not adopt at all.

      Think Wisconsin which has a State Constituitional Amendment not only preventing Gender Neutral Marriage but also any civil laws that would give “quasi” like recognition like Civil Unions.

      Think Hawaii and what just happened there.

      Think Maine which jsut lost Gender Neutral marriage by public vote.

      And on and on and on.

      Do not underestimate NOM, be realistic and fight them every chance we get like this summer of Marriage Tour they are on. We need to show up in the same public square and not be off site having Equality family picnics with corn hole. (I understand Iowa’s counter protest as they already have Marriage Equality). We need to fight harder because we are the ones who have an uphill battle when (not if) it comes to a Constituitional Amendment. Silent protests only means that the other side gets heard and we do not. We will never achieve Equality by “Nicing” our way in, it will only come through struggle and protests.

      Reply
      • 113. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:44 am

        I think you’re so very right, Straight Grandmother. Instead of a lessening of resolve from the opponents, I’ve noticed a broader more insistent determination of the other side. Back in the 1980’s the tactics that brought the HIV/AIDS issue into the light were not pleasant, but they were effective. And if Prop 8 gets defeated, out opponents are going to be much more determined, not less. If you think of the tactics that sold Prop 8 used across the entire nation (that is, churches being marshalled to gather signatures and donations), it’s a formidable foe.

        But Olson/Boies have brought something new: Straight guys from two sides of the political spectrum with powerful arguments in a court of law. You see what just a rumor about Judge Walker can do to their good work (no one is questioning the sexual preferences of other judges who have ruled for our side). But I think continuing to meet the rallies in the street with numbers and passive resistance, as well as the reasoned arguments before the courts, we’ll prevail. But we can’t count on one without the other.

        Reply
      • 114. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:12 am

        Richard & MJ you are both so right. I do sincerely believe we will win this in the Supreme Court if it ever reaches there.

        BUT WHEN NOM and their co-horts mount their well funded and well coordinated (don’t forget they are already well organized) campaign for a Constitutional Amendment all bets are off. It’s like MJ said, think of all those people sitting int he pews every Sunday and what their Priests and Pastors preach to them. Remember how shocked everybody was when ProtectMarriage.com had that first Pastors Conference call?

        We are a disparate (was that the right word?) tribe not well orgnized at all. Look how many GLBT organizations there are. We are not coordinated at all. And the HRC will not ever lead street protests, which is where we will need to be in order to win. We ahve to do like MLK, we have to take it to the streets, and GLBTs need to SHOW UP! We have no great single GLBT Leader whom everyone will follow. We are exactly what our lawyers said we are, we lack political power.

        The only hope for a Great GLBT Leader is see is Lt Dan Choi, I don’t see anybody else. He has Courage, he has brains and he will take it to the streets and he gets publicity. If there is someone else, anybody please tell me who that person is?

        Who is our Rainbow Tribe “Leader,” right now today?

        Reply
      • 115. Jim  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:47 am

        @Straight Grandmother, I agree with you about Lt. Dan Choi.

        I saw Lt. Choi on Thursday night at a protest outside a Los Angeles hotel where Ruth Institute, a NOM-backed youth re-education group, was doing a fundraiser.

        Lt. Choi honorably served our country in the Army, and he continues to defend our Constitution every day. He is an American hero.

        Reply
      • 116. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:47 am

        I think we are actually pretty well organized-just look at our community’s response to this NOM tour. At the same time, I don’t think that they necessarily have ONE organization against teh gay.

        We certainly do need more involvement from the gay community, but I know a lot of older members are tired of the struggle and MANY of the new members are satisfied with their faux-hawks, American Apparel tee-shirts, and iPhones. It was like pulling teeth getting some members here in Maine to help with the No on 1, especially since some of us don’t care about marriage or don’t even want it legal for us.

        I am not sure if many people really see this as a national movement, either. The focus has been on a state by state battle and each state seems to have a leading organization. The situation for us is SO much better than it was before and I think many of us are just complacent and are waiting for the courts to do the job for us.

        Dave

        Reply
      • 117. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:51 am

        @ Dave in ME: Yes, as a community, we have gotten very complacent. And it is that very complacency that will lead to the loss of everything we have struggled so hard to achieve, and possibly lead to going even further backward to being criminalized once again, as well as an increase in the number of crimes against us. That is why we can NEVER grow complacent, and why we can NEVER stop fighting.

        Reply
      • 118. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:17 pm

        @Dave in ME, I do not think we are organized Nationally. Hey I may be 100% wrong and i hope I am. It seems to me that that there are many independent GLBT organizations scattered throughout the states who all believe in the same thing but but are not cohesive. Everyone seems to act independently.

        I hear you about young gays not participating, I think that is true. Maybe their ears will prick up if there is a serious Constituitional Amendment run against them. Maybe then, then they will wish they would have participated more earlier. It totally pisses me off the 10’s of thousands of people who will show up for a gay pride parade but won’t face the enemy on the court house steps. It really burns me.

        Reply
      • 119. Don in Texas  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        I understand your trepidation, SG, but my point was that amending the federal constitution can take a very, very long time — 203 years in the case of the last (27th) amendment.

        Earlier, I noted that the constitution (and amendments to it) define and limit the actions of government, not the rights of the people. That is why, for example, the Prohibition amendment lasted only a dozen years or so before it was repealed.

        It is incumbent on those who understand the Constitution and the proper role of government to educate those who are ignorant and/or misinformed. Judge Walker’s incredibly detailed and sweeping opinion certainly accomplishes that goal by explaining the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

        If NOM attempts to pass an opposite-sex-only-in-marriage amendment, it obviously would conflict with the 14th amendment and require a tremendous educational effort on the part of those who oppose such an unconstitutional campaign.

        Reply
      • 120. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:01 pm

        Hi Don in Texas, nice to see someone here who’s older than I am. I know there are a few among to P8TTs here, but I don’t see them very often. :)

        Reply
    • 121. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:40 am

      And Don, allow me to add this to what Straight Grandmother said. Harvey Milk told us back in 1977, when he was finally elected as the first openly gay Supervisor in the history of San Francisco, that we need to work toward electing more openly gay men and women to public office. And we really need to increase that effort today. And not only gay men and lesbian women, but also bisexuals and transgender. We need to increase the number of Rainbow Tribe members who are in public positions, in order to increase not only our political power, but also our visibility. We need to have a greater number of our people in all levels of government–city, county, state, and federal. And we need to get the vote out in our community to achieve this. We need to have more events like “Queer the Census,” to prove just how many of us there are in this country. We need more people to do videos for Testimony: Equality on Trial, so that people can see exactly who they are harming by listening to all of this homophobic rhetoric. We need to show people that NOM encourages people like Lynching Larry. We need to help them see just how close to Fred Phelps’ ideas these people really are. We need to make sure that WBC and NOM are exposed for what they really are–hate groups, who enjoy seeing us beaten, stabbed, burned, and committing suicide. They want to see us dead, and we need to make sure that comes out into the light of day. We can no longer afford to let them remain hidden and cloaked in darkness. If we do, it is not only marriage equality we lose, it is our very lives.

      Reply
      • 122. Don in Texas  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        I agree wholeheartedly. We are making progress and are advancing on these fronts little by little, day by day.

        FWIW, I’m 74 years old and recall vividly the hatred and bigotry against LGBT people in the 50s and 60s which has continued to this day. But the barriers are being broken and we must continue the fight, regardless of the obstacles thrown before us.

        Reply
  • 123. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Morning history test. Who here remembers Chuck Colson, former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973, he is noted for being the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges.

    Well, he’s got the scoop on some important evidence (no citations) that was missed in the Prop 8 trial.

    Chuck Colson alleges amazing unknown evidence not produced for Prop 8 trial

    http://www.examiner.com/liberal-christian-in-tucson/chuck-colson-alleges-amazing-unknown-evidence-not-produced-for-prop-8-trial-1

    Reply
    • 124. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:15 am

      Chuck Colson is also the founder of Prison Fellowship, because he “found Jesus” in prison, and is now one of those who is perverting the message of Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef for his own enrichment. They put out a rag called “Inside Journal” that is billed as “the hometown news for those on the inside.” If your beliefs don’t line up with theirs, you aren’t a Christian. And they include the oldest Christian denomination, Catholicism, as a separate religion. They don’t come out and call it a cult (as Focus on the Family defines cults), but they imply it very strongly. In fact, if you use the FotF definition of a cult, Prison Fellowship fits right in, complete with the brainwashing tactics.

      Reply
    • 125. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:25 am

      I saw a video of him somewhere commenting on all the flaws in the Prop 8 decision, accompanied by all the usual citations, i.e., None or The Bible. I watched about 30 seconds of it and decided my time was better spent watching paint dry.

      Reply
    • 126. Don in Texas  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      I recall Charles W. “Chuck” Colson very well from my days as a broadcast journalist during the Watergate era. CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) had him in charge of Republican “dirty tricks” during that period. He was a White House Special Counselor to the President.

      Reply
    • 127. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      Didn’t know about him. But the article you linked started with: ‘Today Chuck Colson made a startling allegation in an article on the Christian Post…’

      Which was about all I need to know about him :)\

      Maybe there should be a new constitutional amendment: Thou shall not maketh thy shit up.

      Well, sounds more like a commandment, but you get the idea :)

      Reply
      • 128. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:16 pm

        Or how about this one:

        “Thou shalt not enter into a court of law unless you have solid concrete evidence from peer-reviewed studies in addition to your own personal moral biases.”

        Reply
      • 129. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        @Richard, Now that would just take ALL the sport out of it. ;)

        Reply
      • 130. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:46 pm

        This is true. If we had that law, how would we get the chance to poke holes in all their little arguments, or hear someone get up in a federal courtroom and say, “We don’t need any evidence!” (in a whiny two-year-old voice)

        Reply
      • 131. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:57 pm

        @RAW-“Or how about this one:

        “Thou shalt not enter into a court of law unless you have solid concrete evidence from peer-reviewed studies in addition to your own personal moral biases.”

        You crack me UP! Tooooo Funny.

        Reply
      • 132. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:07 pm

        @ Straight Grandmother: Glad you like it. But I still owe you more laughs. BTW sent you a friend request on FB.

        Reply
  • 133. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:31 am

    My apologies for my lack of legal expertise. If the stay remains lifted after Weds., does that mean that Californians will be able to get married all during the time period that the proponents work this through SCOTUS?

    Reply
    • 134. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:51 am

      You can be assured the ruling of the 9th on the stay will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side loses this coming week. So whether the stay is lifted or not is up to the Supremes. And if you notice, Boise/Olson lay out a timeline that puts the 9th Court ruling before the November election. We need to keep the Attorney General of California on our side.

      Reply
      • 135. Anna Bryan  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:25 am

        Clarification: Plaintiffs have requested that oral arguments occur on November 15, 2010. The court may not grant the timeline that Plaintiffs presented. More importantly, it can take up to a year after oral arguments for the court to issue a ruling.

        Reply
  • 136. karen in kalifornia  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:35 am

    This whole thing (waiting to see if we’re all equal or not) is nerve-wracking. Thank all of you for the edification on the law and the legal process and keeping me up to date.

    Reply
  • 137. Petr Tomeš  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Bullet-proof counterarguments supported by the most credible sources to the motion for stay of supporters of Proposition 8
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1qqBGvfJQdyHCqlvN4OEO4HYzt7no2OL1x_nJ0aXo1vw

    Reply
    • 138. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:54 am

      Petr, nice find! Good reference document. Every little bit helps in the struggle.

      Reply
      • 139. Petr Tomeš  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Thank you. Nice to see that someone is interested in my hard deep work. :-)

        Reply
      • 140. Petr Tomeš  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:22 am

        I hope much of my reference document could be very helpful as a foundation of factual evidence in the next steps in the case. This was meant to be deeply researched quotes of highly credible sources.

        Reply
    • 141. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:32 am

      As comforting and reassuring as it is to be here among like-minded people, I spend most of my time on newspaper sights putting forward what I think are rationale arguments. Your list of citations are very helpful and we need all the “bullet points” we can get. So thank you. We need to spread the word.

      Reply
    • 142. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:40 am

      I am also very grateful that you found this, Petr. This will more than likely be handy for us here in NC. I am sorry not to have responded earlier, but I was downloading it and printing it so I could better type the links to get all of the documents into my laptop.

      Reply
  • 147. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:46 am

    ” V.
    In The Alternative, The Court Should Expedite This Appeal To The
    Greatest Extent Possible.

    Proponents have failed to meet their burden of proving that a stay is appropri- ate, and none should be entered. But, in the event that the Court decides to issue a stay, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court expedite this appeal to the greatest extent possible. Expedited treatment would be warranted because, if a stay is granted, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm each day that Proposition 8 remains in force. Accordingly, if a stay is granted, Plaintiffs request that this Court order that Proponents’ opening brief be filed by September 15, 2010; that Plaintiffs’ answering brief be filed by October 15, 2010; and that the reply brief, if any, be filed by October 29, 2010. Plaintiffs further respectfully request that oral argument be heard no later than November 15, 2010.”

    If no stay, Plaintiffs are asking for an expedited trial schedule.

    Reply
  • 149. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:54 am

    But if the 9th denies a stay, will marriages be able to take place DURING the proponents’ additional appeals?

    Reply
    • 150. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:17 am

      Assuming there isn’t a stay done by Justice Kennedy or by the full SCOTUS, the answer to this is yes.

      Reply
    • 151. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:51 am

      What Proponents are asking for is a ‘stay pending appeal.’ If they get that stay, it will remain in effect until the end of the appeals process with the 9th Circuit. If the 9th Circuit also concludes that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the proponents would have to ask for an additional (or the Court could issue one voluntarily) to stay the decision through the appeal of the US Supreme Court.

      If the 9th Circuit denies the stay pending appeal, they could still issue a temporary stay to give Proponents time to ask the Supreme Court for a stay. The 9th Circuit judges could also defer the decision on the request for a stay pending appeal and issue a temporary stay to give them more time to consider the request.

      However, If the present stay expires on Wed without another stay put in place to extend the expiration date, marriages will be able to take place until/if another stay is issued.

      As a practical matter, if the 9th denies the stay pending appeal, and the US Supreme Court denies a request for an emergency stay, I think chances are that no stay will be issued throughout the entire appeals process (right through any Supreme Court appeal). I don’t see what justification there would be for a stay further along the road, if there is no reason to stay it now.

      Does that answer your question? If not, let me know and I’ll try again.

      Reply
      • 152. Jonathon  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

        @ Kathleen I was just curious. In terms of the Proponents “legal standing”, if the 9th CC decides that Proponents don’t have legal standing, generally speaking, can they still decide to allow them to appeal? (If, for example, the 9th CC believes that this issue is so important that it must be heard, therefore “authorizes” the Proponents to be able to appeal)? Do you know what I mean?

        Reply
      • 153. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:57 am

        Thank you, Kathleen — that helps a lot. I never dreamed I’d be so interested in legal documents and that I become so fond of a bunch of folks who are equally obsessive about all this!!!!

        Reply
      • 154. BradK  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        @Kate: With our civil rights at stake, it’s hard not to be obsessive!

        Reply
      • 155. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm

        Jonathan, I think I understand your question – asking whether or not the 9th Circuit can permit the Proponents to appeal the case, even if it’s determined that the rules/case law don’t assure Proponents the right to do so. Is that your question?

        I don’t know the answer. I suspect the answer is No, based on how the commentary around this issue has been framed and also the types of arguments Proponents make in their motion. I would think if that was an option, Proponents would be arguing not only their RIGHT to appeal but also why, in the absence of a right, they should be allowed to anyway.

        But I’m woefully lacking in knowledge about procedure. Hopefully someone who knows more than I, can answer with some authority.

        Reply
      • 156. Jonathon  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        @ Kathleen Thanks Kathleen for your response. Yes, that was my question. And you made a good point, that if that was a possibility, that the Proponent’s request for an Emergency Stay would have addressed it (and I don’t recall reading anything about it when I read it). So, it may be that the 9th CC does not have the authority to decide to let the Prop 8 folks appeal, despite them not having substantive standing (if any). Of course, like Kathleen said, if there’s someone who might have any additional info on this, please chime in. :) Thanks, Kathleen (and to all) – Jonathon

        Reply
  • 157. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Does this make any sense?

    I think our constitution is written in such a way to be more inclusive instead of exclusive. It’s the principle that we should consider, not trying to find loopholes to exclude people. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution for anyone. Yet, the priciples of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom to associate, and privacy all speak to our right to choose our legal next of kin and that’s called civil marriage.

    Reply
    • 158. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:34 am

      Josh, this makes perfect sense. However, we all know that the NOMbies have never been very strong in the departments of sense, logic, and critical thinking. All they are able to do is follow the money, and repeatedly rehash what their financiers tell them to say.

      Reply
      • 159. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:48 am

        You’re right, it’s all about money for them. Money leading them to more political power.

        Just this morning on 102.9 FM in the Twin Cities area I’ve heard a commercial two times paid for by nom encouraging people to vote for candidates who will support their “right to vote” on the definition of marriage. I didn’t catch the whole thing either time so I don’t know if it was endorsing a particular candidate. This will be a wedge issue in MN this year since the legislature is poised to include us in marriage as long as Dems keep enough majority in congress and if we can elect a Dem governor finally.

        Reply
    • 160. AndrewPDX  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:30 am

      Ask a 5 year old what “happily ever after” means in her favorite Disney movie, and she’ll describe marriage.

      Find that rare but truly “happily married’ straight man and ask him what the happiest day of his life is — barring the birth of children, he’ll answer “my wedding day”.

      Thus, the “Pursuit of Happiness” can easily be thought of “Pursuit of Happily Ever After”, and “Pursuit of Happily Married”.

      I WANT MY UNALIENABLE RIGHT!

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 161. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:06 am

    [not a lawyer here] It’s my understanding the State–with Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional–can issue licenses right now. Everyone is just “playing by the rules.” And, yes, the Supreme Court can issue an emergency stay just like the 9th is considering. Given the strong language that Jerry Brown is using, I’d bet that he isn’t going to let this go on too much longer in the absence of some other ruling striking down Judge Walker’s order. But that’s just the opinion of a very biased layman.

    Reply
  • 162. Bolt  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Good morning, everyone, there is indeed a lot of information in these legal documents, and I agree with the NYT article.

    That question is up to Ninth Circuit. But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country.

    I hope we blaze boldly forward. If we show any timidness about going forward then we’re not any better than the cowards who hide their names associated with their signatures and donations at the ballot box when they’re voting on our rights. Let’s give them hell; conversely, we’re not going to lose this!

    Reply
  • 163. Steve  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:44 am

    “Proponents’ oversized stay motion simply reproduces (sometimes, verbatim) the same arguments Proponents unsuccessfully advanced on summary judgment and then failed to substantiate at trial. Indeed, Proponents’ evidentiary presentation was anemic”

    Owned!

    Reply
    • 164. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:01 am

      (My personall “favorite” moment in the document.)

      Reply
  • 165. Sarah  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:46 am

    All this legal talk is getting to my brain… Have an uplifting SMILE, everyone:

    http://daily.gay.com/hot_topics/2010/08/gay-protest-signs-the-greatest-hits.html

    Aaaaaand, subscribing.

    Reply
    • 166. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:53 am

      Thanks, just what I needed!!

      Reply
  • 167. Cat  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Is it reasonable to assume the 9th will agree with Walker, but will also issue a temporary stay to allow SCOTUS to hear the appeal of their decision?

    Reply
    • 168. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:10 am

      I suspect Justice Kennedy is prepared to respond to an appeal if the stay is denied by the 9th Circuit, no matter where he is. And quite possibly by the Aug 18 deadline. I’m sure his four clerks are all over it.

      Kathleen, et al, would it be reasonable to assume that if Kennedy agrees to deny the stay at this point, the Supreme Court is unlikely to reconsider the question later on in the process? Unless the sky has fallen in the meantime, of course.

      Reply
      • 169. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        I think that’s a reasonable assumption. I can’t think of what justification there would be for a stay later if there’s none now.

        Anyone else, opinions?

        Reply
  • 170. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Oh yay! You figured out how to embed scribd docs.

    And subscribing uber late.

    Reply
  • 171. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

    I was just thinking…the way that some people are saying the the vote of the people IS the law and no judge can rule otherwise, then I guess that means that every vote for something that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is actually an amendment to the Constitution!!

    I think I get it now!

    Dave

    Reply
    • 172. Steve  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:41 pm

      The idea that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution can’t be a fundamental right is a fallacy too.

      That’s what the Ninth Amendment is for:
      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

      But using that as a sole legal argument in any case is next to impossible. You can’t derive rights only from that.

      Reply
  • 173. Weekend Open Thread : Delaware Liberal  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    […] actual filings by the state of California and the city of San Francisco, you can read them at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. I guess we’ll have to wait until Wednesday to find out if the 9th Circuit will continue to […]

    Reply
  • 174. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Hey folks. I’m a major junkie when it comes to following the legal minutiae of this case, but first time poster. I normally write my analyses on my Facebook page so my friends can ignore it. : )

    I’ve got a question.

    We know the AG’s office has entered a brief to the Ninth Circuit. They opposed any extension of Walker’s 7-day stay, agree with Walker’s overall case decision, and state they will not appeal Walker’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

    Is there a brief available yet regarding the governor’s position on these matters? I know his office submitted a brief to Walker opposing any extension of the stay, but I have not heard anything from them specifically addressed to the Ninth Circuit yet.

    Thanks!

    Reply
    • 175. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:37 pm

      Hi Stephen, thank for finally posting! No, nothing came through from the Governor’s Office to the 9th Circuit. Btw, you can get all filings in the case, from here:
      http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

      Reply
      • 176. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm

        Thanks for the heads up! I’ve been getting most of my briefs off the Federal court website for the SF District Court. That way I get ’em as soon as the court posts ’em. That won’t help me at the next level of the case.

        I wonder if the governor’s office will submit a brief or not. Hrm!

        Reply
      • 177. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:29 pm

        Stephen, unless I’m away from my computer (something I don’t do often lately), I get all court filings and have them uploaded to the above Scribd account w/in a few minutes of them becoming available.

        The 9th Circuit has set up a page at their website for this case, but I don’t know if they’ll necessarily be posting everything, or just the most crucial filings.
        http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000475

        Reply
      • 178. Stephen  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:54 pm

        Ahh, a most handy link! I bookmarked both it and your Scribd link.

        I was hoping the governor’s office would file something today. Would have made nice evening reading now that my son is down for the night.

        –Stephen

        Reply
      • 179. Alex  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:25 pm

        Arnold is a wishy washy govenator. He is like a woman on too much hermones. lol

        Reply
  • 180. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    The weird thing about the proponants’ 96 page brief is they keep going on and on and ON about how important heterosexual marriage is for society and children….if you missed the first part of the argument, you’d think this was all a response to STRAIGHT MARRIAGE BEING BANNED.

    I wish they could calm down and realize no one is plotting to take anything away from them.

    There’s enough “marriage” to go around for everyone.

    Reply
    • 181. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:50 pm

      It’s one of the dynamics of prejudice: to feel superior to someone else. The day of the ruling (happy was I) and on the comment section of the San Francisco Chronicle. A woman (not so happy) bitterly wrote, “Thanks for spoiling marriage for the rest of us.” I was taken aback, but then thought, “Ah. It’s that need to control, demean, and condemn ‘the other.'” Whether the source is insecurity or simply wanting to be mean, it has a payoff for those who practice prejudice. And sadly, it’s usually a blind spot to the person who practices it.

      Reply
  • 182. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Looking forward to Proponents 15 page rebuttal. Will they ask for permission to blather on, yet again? Can they contain themselves to 15 pages? What else could they possibly have to say?

    Reply
    • 183. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm

      Well, the earlier one they did was just a rehash of everything they moaned about in trial…though they started throwing in word definitions on marriage from 19th Century dictionaries. They’re also openly contemptuous of and condescending toward Judge Walker….which is an unusual attitude to strike in a legal pleading. They may just descent into complete hysteria in the rebuttal.

      Reply
      • 184. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm

        Complete hysteria would be entertaining.

        Reply
    • 185. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:19 pm

      Also, to be honest, I think they are attempting the old “razzle-dazzle” method of litigation. The one that says when you can’t razzle ’em with brilliance, dazzle ’em with BS.”

      Reply
  • 190. Ray  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    The only party who has not weighed in to the Ninth Circuit is the Guvernator, who was not ordered to respond.

    Atty Gen Brown sent in his opinion on his own, not because he was ordered to.

    My take –

    Federal appeals court decisions tend to have five distinct sections. In the second section, the court describes why it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    This part of the decision is almost always cut-and-paste from some previous decision.

    In the case at hand, the section titled “Jurisdiction and Venue” will almost certainly -not- be a cut-and-paste from any previous case.

    Federal appeals court decisons tend to have five sections.

    (1) The Parties In thi ssection the appeals court will describe who the parties to the case are.

    (2) Jurisdiction and Venue. In this case venue is appropriate in the Ninth Circuit because all parties live and work in the state of California. The district court had jurisdiction pursuiant to [some esoteric citation to Federll law].

    For the reasons described below, this court lacks jurisdiction to make any pronouncement at this time.

    (3) The Facts. The factual recitation at this stage will regard the facts needed to understand the issue of standing, not the facts needed to decide the issue of same-sex marriage.

    (4) The Law. Again, at this stage, the discussion of the law will regard the law as it applies to Proponent’s and their standing, not the law as it applies to marriage of any sort.

    (5) The Conclusion. This of course is the final part of any decision. If the Court says in Section Two that it has no jurisdiction, the conclusion is bound to say the same thing.

    If they rule as this writer predicts, the Ninth Circuit will, in the end, stay their decision for 30 days, most likely.

    But there comes a time when nobody is there that can give out another stay, and poof, the case is over.

    Reply
  • […] 5 PM PST on August 18th (should the Motion to Stay go our way- for more on progress with that, see Eden’s post late Friday night regarding the Emergency Motion to Stay and both sides filing papers). The Office […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,308 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...