Los Angeles County preparing to extend hours, ceremony availability in anticipation of Prop 8 Motion to Stay ruling
August 15, 2010 at 7:00 am adambink 176 comments
by Adam Bink
I learned yesterday that the Office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is extending hours in preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after 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 will also be performing ceremonies on a first-come, first-serve basis through August 27th. Here’s the press release via e-mail:
SERVICES IN PLACE TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSITION 8 COURT RULING
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Headquarters in Norwalk to Issue Marriage Licenses Beginning August 18th at 5:00 PM
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC) Dean Logan announced today that his office will extend business hours at its Norwalk Headquarters, to accommodate federal court orders to cease enforcement of Proposition 8, permitting same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license as of August 18 at 5:00 PM; the effective date of the Court’s order lifting the stay of execution on the court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
The RR/CC Headquarters in Norwalk, located at 12400 Imperial Highway in the City of Norwalk will remain open from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM for the purpose of issuing Marriage Licenses and to offer Civil Marriage ceremonies. All other services will close at 5:00 PM and resume at 8:00 AM the following day. RR/CC District offices, located throughout the County, will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Thursday, August 19, 2010 during regular business hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM).
To accommodate the anticipated increase in requests for civil marriage ceremonies, the RR/CC will expand the availability of ceremonies it offers at its various locations. Starting August 19th through August 27th couples with a Marriage License may request a civil marriage ceremony without an appointment, on a first-come, first-served basis during regular business hours at all RR/CC locations.
The rest of the release can be found on the Office website.
What we could end up seeing is evening ceremonies, some that even go late into the night as couples line up to wed while they can. It will be quite a sight to see.
Entry filed under: Background.
176 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Ed Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | August 15, 2010 at 7:02 am
Good!
2.
Felyx | August 15, 2010 at 7:45 am
Sort of Repost –
I have been focusing on healing lately but have read a few posts. What is happening in CA is very exciting and quite gratifying. NOM, on the other hand is very boring. I just can’t bring myself to listen to there crap anymore. I thought there was more to there rallies.
Reading about the other rallies made the event sound exciting albeit disgusting. But when I actually was there and saw the rally in Raleigh… what a disappointment! It was boring. NOM supporters were yawning. It was difficult for us to get up the energy to chant or even wave signs. The only stimulation we really had was the honking cars which were all honking for us. So, now I can’t be bothered with NOM. If anything I check in to see how we are doing and to see if any of the fellow P8TTers are there.
Anyway, I would love to see us put on a marriage tour. There is no doubt that we could kick ass!!! And if and when I ever get my Rusky Spy over here, I seriously hope to go on a 50 State roadtrip and visit all of you!
Anyway, in the event this ever happens be sure to link to our facebook page so we can keep in touch.
Felyx (& Kevyn… since he is always on Skype with me when I am writing these comments!)
http://www.facebook.com/IridescentAngels
3.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 7:55 am
Please ask Kevyn to check for an e-mail from me, I just sent it, since you are on Skype together and all, LOL.
Change the subject. I saw your pic from the Raleigh counter protest and I have to say that you are so cute it is going to make his mother accepting you two as a couple much easier. It might take her a few days but she will come to realize that her Kirille got a god catch. I think my son got a good catch with his husband.
4.
Bolt | August 15, 2010 at 8:05 am
Good morning, Felyx, your reaction is normal, and healthy. “I just can’t bring myself to listen to there crap anymore.” Anyone with a shred of self esteem should experience an equal amount of outrage after witnessing these raging NOMarriage assholes.
In my opinion anyone who earns a living off of anti-gay dollars deserves to have their careers destroyed, and be financially devastated. The same holds true for any religious organization that has followed these fools.
5.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 9:01 am
My husband always asks how I can keep watching videos of people spouting their ignorance, but I do it to better know my opposition. It helps to sense the pattern most people will follow so I can be better prepared for rebuttal but also more able to stay calm. It is surprising the first time you hear something, but if I’ve already heard it, then I can let it roll right off so I don’t overreact.
6.
JC (one of the CA 18,000) | August 15, 2010 at 10:29 am
My lovely wife and I would love to participate! We’ve got a little RV and time to travel. Since Prop 8, we’ve travelled over 40,000 miles as “gaywill ambassadors” into small towns all over the South and Midwest, being out, happy, friendly and “normal” in what is mostly a very hetero, older world. It’s been a blast!
7.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 10:30 am
I completely understand no longer wanting to listen to NOM and their ilk. And I think it’s particularly important when one is trying to heal, so I applaud your decision to distance yourself from the bile (not that my opinion matters in this :) – I trust you to know what is best for you).
For myself, like Alan E, I read/listen to this crap in order to better understand my opponent. But there is a limit. There’s only so much hatred I can expose myself to before it starts to sap my energy. As I’ve said before, that’s when I head to YouTube to watch videos of otters. :) For your enjoyment – otters don’t make good house pets:
8.
Felyx | August 15, 2010 at 10:56 am
Oh JC! Please do link with us on Facebook. Or maybe if you are not on Facebook, you can email one of us directly!
And Kathleen,
The otters are adorable! Better than cats but worse than cats! (Yes, that is what I mean to say LOL!)
I have to heal and finish a few projects and then I can conceivable tour America for Gay Rights. I love you all and would meet everyone of you if I could. (Even the h8ters!)
Felyx
9.
Sheryl Carver | August 15, 2010 at 11:12 am
LOVED the otters! Great emotional reset!
I currently have dogs, cats, goats, & chickens. Have had a ferret, rabbits, ducks, horses, calves, hamsters, & guinea pigs- not all at the same time. After watching this video, never want to have otters, but would love to visit someone who does. Being very careful to leave any valued possessions OUTSIDE of their house, though. :-)
10.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Man, I went out for a couple of hours, and you folks have been yakking it up! Must subscribe and catch up.
11.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 16, 2010 at 6:40 am
subscribing…
12.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 7:43 am
The state and civic governments in CA really believe Prop 8 is wrong, and want it done away with. Their goodwill and enthusiasm is remarkable.
As an outside observer, I think the whole ballot initiative process in CA is broken… not necessarily in principle, but it is way too permissive. Take that from the perspective of a Canadian, where our governments function fine with no initiative process whatever. If we don’t like what our legislators are doing we vote them out.
13.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 8:02 am
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Even though you here that it eventually self corrects think of the people who are harmed until that correction happens.
14.
Straight Ally #3008 | August 15, 2010 at 8:43 am
Hear, hear. I’m amazed that California’s constitution can be changed by a ballot initiative, it’s tyranny of the majority. I shudder to think what the U.S. Constitution would look like under such legal guidelines.
15.
Joel | August 15, 2010 at 3:03 pm
“Democracy is two lions and one lamb voting on what’s for dinner”
I think that was one of our Founfing Fathers who said that
16.
Steve | August 15, 2010 at 8:49 am
A certain amount of direct democracy isn’t a bad thing. But I’ve found that it’s usually used by small groups to get something they in particular profit from – not so much society as a whole. And it’s often used not to get something, but to prevent something. For example riling people up against some infrastructure project that inconveniences them personally. The excuse in that case is of course environmental damage. The tactics of lies and obfuscation are quite similar to Prop8, although not targeted at people.
And of course the rights of minorities must be off limits for ballot initiatives. It’s mindboggling that this isn’t more obvious in the US. I think Washington DC is the only case where an ethics committee had the common sense to not allow such a vote to take place.
17.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 9:39 am
I think that’s part of the ‘excessively permissive’ CA ballot initiative rules…. the AG has no right to prevent a ballot initiative if it has the signatures. In DC, the initiative rules permit the ethics committee to screen proposed initiatives that conflict with the DC ‘constitution’… not sure that’s what it’s called. In other states, a constitutional amendment cannot be put on the ballot unless the legislature approves it first.
18.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 9:03 am
The only difference between a new state law and a constitutional amendment in CA is the number of signatures required to get it on the ballot. Both still require 50%+1 to pass. There are a few companies who make big bucks getting petition signatures here.
19.
Rick | August 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm
For a ballot initiative to be approved, it should require a higher threshold. For example, a 2/3 majority, and maybe even needing two consecutive general election votes with a 2/3 majority.
20.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Word, Sagesse. The CA Supreme Court as much as said so when they handed down the ruling upholding Prop8 last year. Ron George looked so sad when he said it, too.
21.
OldCoastie | August 15, 2010 at 8:06 am
I’m guessing the County is also looking forward to the additional revenue.
22.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 8:21 am
On this same subject while Felyx is healing he and Kevyn should have plenty of time to register for wedding gifts. Start creating your gift registry now. You know most of us on P8tt will want to send a gift. LOL! LOL but TRUE!
23.
PamC | August 15, 2010 at 9:32 am
I second this! Sign up, you two! :)
24.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm
And you can register with me for all your Stanley Home Products and fuller Brush. I will scan my catalogs in and email the pdf files to both of you so you can make your selections and tell me how many of each you want and which items you only want one of. that way I can set it up in the database so that you only get duplicates of what you want duplicates of.
25.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 8:23 am
Way to go, LA County! Let’s hear it for LOVE!!!!
26.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 8:57 am
I’ll be there! I already knew that Norwalk will be open late if the stay is lifted. Plans already in place to come with cupcakes and flowers.
If there will be any trackers there — either to get married or just to experience the joy — look for me. I’ll be the old lady with the pink bow headband.
I have fingers and toes crossed, hoping we’ll all be able to celebrate on Wednesday evening.
27.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 2:38 pm
*finger crossed and eyes scrunched* I wish I wish I wish….!
28.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Hey again Kathleen: I ran into a lady in a parking lot today while I was on my way to a wedding and she said she and some other folks from UU Pasadena will be there with gifties and people ordained to conduct ceremonies outside the building. So it should be a party!!
29.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm
What great news. I’m so hoping this is a go on Wednesday!
30.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 8:56 pm
And here we are in NC with no way to be there in person. I hope somebody takes pictures of this! And I hope this is one heaven of a joyous day!
31.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 8:31 am
T minus 30 minutes……to NOM’s final rally……err, i mean implosion LOL
Should be entertaining, man I wish I could go
Ed
32.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
Tick.. Tock
Not more than 15 seconds ago I was jsut thinking, when does it start again?
I guess AdamBink must be holding down the fort. I hope they radio in to Adam early to give us a sense of intitially what is going on. I HOPE it is not a counter protest where they are off site…
33.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 8:49 am
Question….say Brian Brown is successful with his amending the US Const, which we all know is *extremely* difficult to accomplish, what would happen to all the legally gay married couples? Not just in Cali, but all the other jurisdictions? I highly doubt the federal govt would be willing to invalidate ALL of them…..
Thoughts?
Ed
34.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 8:59 am
Almost certain that they would remain intact.
35.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 9:31 am
It’s funny when these people discuss adding a constitutional amendment because they are conceding the fact that we do have a constitutional right to marry and they have to add into it to say that we don’t. Next time you hear someone mention this (or if you happen to bring it up), ask them about that.
36.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 9:49 am
That is a good Point Alan E. Nobody made that point previously.
37.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:05 am
My guess as to how they’ll reply: ‘No, it’s not in the Constitution; anyone can see that (likely accompanied with some rant about the founding fathers, gay sex and ‘common sense’). But because a few elitist activist judges have said it is, the only choice we have now is to make it perfectly clear what the Constitution DOES say.”
38.
VoxCanaille | August 15, 2010 at 10:01 am
If by putting marriage in the constitution, would all marriage laws lose the 10th amendment coverage of being reserved to the states (or the people), and become federal jurisdiction?
If so, that would really piss off the state’s righters. I’m sure that could be leveraged (but I honestly doubt it would go that far.)
39.
Steve | August 15, 2010 at 9:06 am
That would be an ex post facto law I guess, which is usually prohibited.
40.
HunterR. | August 15, 2010 at 9:26 am
Morning all,
Glued to the computer reading all the information available in cyberspace and what is next in this saga. I just found another analysis regarding the future of prophate. It is quite interesting to consider all the possibilities and the outcomes. It seems that the issue of standing is at the heart of the matter, no?
“But in the end, do we really want gay marriage to become legal in California because of what’s essentially a technicality? That seems a highly unsatisfying resolution to what was always billed as an epic case, and it would expose in the left a bit of hypocrisy about standing much as it would the right. Far better would be for the Prop 8 proponents themselves to decide not to bring an appeal. David Barton of the American Family Association has already floated that idea. If conservatives cave in on their own, they’d implicitly concede how terribly weak their case was at trial, whatever excuse they come up with. (Barton’s was to cast Kennedy as a sure vote in favor of a constitutional right to gay marriage. Amusing that he thinks so, but I still wouldn’t want to bet on it.) ”
http://www.slate.com/id/2263943/
41.
Bolt | August 15, 2010 at 9:57 am
I agree with this attitude,
“But in the end, do we really want gay marriage to become legal in California because of what’s essentially a technicality? That seems a highly unsatisfying resolution to what was always billed as an epic case, and it would expose in the left a bit of hypocrisy about standing much as it would the right.”
This is out of anyone’s control. The law is the law, and even if Olson’s team wants them to appeal the question of legal standing remains. Whatever happens, I don’t know how we would lose this. What would the legal logic be?
42.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 10:04 am
It won’t ‘become legal in CA’ because of a technicality. If not appealed,it is already legal in CA. It will be ‘limited to CA’ because of a technicality.
43.
TPAKyle | August 15, 2010 at 9:37 am
Anyone interested in knowing what NOM has to say about their recent failures can see and hear their last rally live.
Tell all of your friends to log in, even if they do not intend to watch. We can certainly provide many more viewers than they have bandwidth! Help drive a final rally live broadcast fail!
Live Broadcast of Rally for Marriage at 2pm ET Today
Today’s Rally for Marriage at the U.S. Capitol, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building will be broadcast LIVE at 2pm ET at http://www.marriagetour2010.com.
Speakers will include Dr. Walter Fauntroy, Bishop Harry Jackson, a message from Dr. Alveda King, a special live performance from Gospel Singers, Song-Writers and Producers Deitrick and Damitra Haddon and more!
Join us at 2pm as we wrap up this year’s Summer for Marriage Tour and stand for marriage in our nation’s capital!
44.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:08 am
Do my eyes deceive me? Is Brian wearing a non-brown suit??
45.
TPAKyle | August 15, 2010 at 11:16 am
Looks “deep brown” to me.
Only 57 viewers watching, probably all from P8TT! No doubt this will be spun to be a win with all the “virtual” attendees being NOM supporters.
46.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 9:38 am
As I wait for the info from the next rally, I am waiting for an event of my own that will happen at noon my time today. My husband and I are taking part in a study of gay men who are looking into fatherhood, and it requires a two hour interview (over the phone). I’m curious and a bit nervous about some of the questions that will be asked because I’m sure there will be some points that I haven’t even given any thought to or something that hasn’t been discussed between my husband and myself. The thought of beginning a process towards fatherhood in a planned fashion is nerve wracking and exciting at the same time. I’m just really glad that it can’t be an unplanned event.
47.
Mark M | August 15, 2010 at 10:58 am
Congrates!!! Fatherhood is amazing! And trust me when I say you will NEVER have everything talked out, planned out, figured out, and be ready for ‘stuff’….it’s all part of the adventure that is parenting LOL
Very excited for you two!!!
48.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm
And parenting is an adventure that does not end when the children mature into adulthood and move out on their own. It only morphs into another type of adventure that may or may not include grandchildren. We love our kids and grandkids!
49.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 10:59 am
Alan E this is most exciting news, oh man I wish you so much much happiness and I hope everything turns out the way you want.
50.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Congrats! We will be sending happy thoughts your way, Alan. You mention that there will likely be questions in this study about things that you and your husband may not have yet discussed and/or even thought about, but that will increase the value of the study for the two of you, because it will give you even more information about becoming fathers, and it will empower the two of you to be even better fathers. I know there are things about the study you will not be able to tell us without jeopardizing the study, but please let us know how it goes for you.
51.
HunterR. | August 15, 2010 at 9:40 am
This video was just too funny to ignore.
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_atheists_bother_mormons.html
52.
Steve | August 15, 2010 at 10:19 am
Oh man. Freakin’ hilarious :)
53.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 10:59 am
Hysterical! I needed that cleansing laughter while I’m fixin’ to watch the NOM rally….
54.
SFBay | August 15, 2010 at 11:24 am
OMG, that is too funny. My wife (we are one of the lucky 18,000 couples in 2008 to get married) was born in Ogden Utah to an extreme Mormon family.
They are nice to us, at least to our faces, but you can be sure they gave money to take our marriage away. Thank god that didn’t happen. Having spent lots of time visiting there I can tell you they really are captive of a cult. They make the Stepford wives look like mere ameteurs.
55.
Joel | August 15, 2010 at 11:38 am
Heheh! My husband comes from a gundis Oklahoma family; when I met my unle an aunt-in-laws, I realized that “Children of the Corn” was a documentary. One of my “aunts” actually totes around a Bible and comings it before answering any question, including “how are you today?”
56.
Joel | August 15, 2010 at 11:41 am
I hate this iPod. That should have said “fundie” not “gundis”
57.
Joel | August 15, 2010 at 11:45 am
Here it is again, properly spelled:
Heheh! My husband comes from a gundis Oklahoma family; when I met my uncle an aunt-in-laws, I realized that “Children of the Corn” was a documentary. One of my “aunts” actually totes around a Bible and consults it before answering any question, including “how are you today?”
58.
JPM | August 15, 2010 at 9:44 am
I am baffled that expectations are again being raised that marriages will begin in CA at 5:00 PM on Wednesday.
Why should anyone believe that if the Ninth Circuit decides to deny the emergency stay, or decides that the Proponents don’t have standing, that they won’t turn around and issue a temporary stay of their decision so that the Supreme Court can weigh in?
Just as Judge Walker issued his temporary stay to defer to the Ninth Circuit, isn’t it almost inevitable that the Ninth Circuit will issue a temporary stay in deference to the Supreme Court?
59.
MadMadeleine | August 15, 2010 at 9:54 am
Hi all, long time lurker and first time commenter — my question is the same as JPM’s. SCOTUS took extraordinary steps to block video broadcast of the prop 8 trial. Is there a reason why they would not take similar extraordinary steps to block enforcement of Walker’s ruling given any hint of an opportunity to do so? I’m trying hard not to get my hopes up here.
60.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 10:27 am
Welcome to the party Madeleine! Pull up a comfy chair and have a drink!
I’m no expert, but I believe the 9CC could extend the stay for SCOTUS to weigh in on the permanent stay. But from what our more-legal-minded members of our community have said, it sounds like they won’t out of ‘respect for the system’ or something like that.
As for getting your hopes up, here’s a quote to ponder:
Hope will never be silent. — Harvey Milk
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andew
61.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:25 am
First, the question of cameras in a courtroom and whether to stay a Federal District Court judge’s order are very different issues.
An interesting point to consider while speculating on what the Supreme Court might do is Justice Roberts’s decision not to step in when DC was poised to issue marriage licenses. Although the legal questions posed in the DC case are very different than in Perry, the effect of his decision was that ss couples would begin marrying in DC while opponents’ case was still pending in the courts.
62.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Welcome to the family Madeleine! Lovely to have you here and to see you finally come out of lurker mode. And here is another quote to go right along with the one AndrewPDX posted:
You gotta give ’em HOPE!–Harvey Milk
63.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 9:59 am
I think because all the Judges including Supreme Court Justice Kennedy are all in Hawaii having a 9th Circuit get away conference. So they are all together and can discuss it over Mai Tais :) No reason the Apellet Court Judges can’t decide on Monday and Kennedy on Tuesday. Theya re all righ there together and htis is probably the highest visability case in thier courts right now.
64.
Kate | August 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
Is there any law that prevents them from chatting together about this? My guess is that there isn’t, or it wouldn’t be legal to all vacation together. Let’s hope!!!!
65.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:39 am
I honestly don’t know what professional standards have to say about judges discussing cases with each other. But I can assure you that if it is prohibited, they could still vacation together. Judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals are accustomed to refraining from discussing many things with other people; they do so all the time.
66.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 10:01 am
I think what the city officials are doing is expressing enthusiastic support for their citizens… they’re saying, if we’re allowed to, we will go out of our way to implement marriage equality.
But it’s not their call. There is a scenario where the 9th Circuit could deny the stay, and Kennedy could agree with them, all before th 18th at 5 pm. People just need to be aware it may not happen that way.
67.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Right, Sagesse, but hopes run wild sometimes. I think JPM’s scenario is likely, and I’m not sure SCOTUS would be willing to expedite a rulling on this one–but nobody knows. Sigh. I’m not good with suspense.
68.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I’m not good with suspense either. In fact, I don’t have any fingernails left, and I am making coffee like their is no tomorrow. Maybe I should go back to baking chocolate cake and cookies?
69.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Actually, I am glad I have BZ’s kapute and mine to make between now and New Year’s for our granddaughter’s wedding in Georgia. And please, folks, let’s keep our fingers crossed that we are out of Afghanistan soon. Her fiance is in the Army and is scheduled to go over there after he goes aback from honeymoon leave. And we have already seen too many of our men and women live out the Carrie Underwood song “Just A Dream” already.
70.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 9:27 pm
@Richard, could you please tell me what a kapute is?
thanks,
Ann
71.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm
That is the traditional suit that Orthodox Jewish men wear, primarily the Hasidic Jews. this is the three piece suit with the suit jacket that goes all the way down to halfway between the knees and the ankles. I am making ours with cotton broadcloth because by the time I put the interfacing and lining in the jacket and vest, if I use anything heavier BZ will be sweating like nobody’s business. When I get them finished I will post the pictures on FB.
BTW, I sent you a friend request earlier. Love the baseball cap.
72.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Thanks, Richard, for the explanation and the friend request. Me in the baseball cap is from last summer, chaperoning our Girl Scouts in London.
73.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Still looks good. And I have to wear a baseball cap and my sunglasses when I go outside too, otherwise, my eyes are so sensitive to the sunlight that I start sneezing, no matter what season it is. And if there is snow on the ground it is even worse because of the reflection from the snow.
74.
Sagesse | August 16, 2010 at 5:53 am
@Elizabeth Oakes
In full Pollyanna mode, I’m hopeful that if the 9th Circuit is persuaded to lift the stay, that Kennedy will go along, without referring the decision to the whole SC. I believe he has the authority to do that.
This is just the stay; the question of standing and the appeal on the merits can go forward in due course. The likelihood that the appeal will succeed on the merits is shaky, even without the uncertainty about standing, and Walker has ruled that no one is harmed if marriages take place; and there are already 18,000 of them.
Whatever ‘sources’ are advising couples who are waiting to get married. they need to temper the hope with the understanding that the outcome and the timing are still uncertain.
75.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 10:12 am
If you never get your hopes up, then what does one live for?
76.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 9:55 am
I’m sorry, I thought it started at 12, not 2
Ed
77.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 10:06 am
subscribing (late to the party)
78.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 10:11 am
Andrew, Don’t be Tardy to the Party :) :) :)
79.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 10:18 am
Another thing that really aggravates me is the number of our own gay and lesbian friends who have no idea of all this stuff regarding gay rights. Its as if they dont care, which really bothers me. Of course, I try to keep them informed, but its still sad. Maybe its just in my own little pocket of civilization…..I dunno….
Anyone else feels like this? Thoughts?
Ed
80.
Alex | August 15, 2010 at 10:24 am
I know a lot of gay and lesbians that don’t care or they just don’t understand the implications of not having the same rights as our straight citizens.
81.
Kate | August 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
Unfortunately, it has always been that way. I’ve been in this since the 1960s (for Civil Rights) and 1970s (feminism, the ERA and gay rights), and you’d be saddened by how many affected folks….. just don’t care. Even during the Black civil rights time, there were people (usually elderly) who didn’t want to rock the boat.
82.
Cat | August 15, 2010 at 10:54 am
I do think they care, but they may not believe they have any power to change things. The forces against marriage equality are intimidating, and the system works slow. Living your life can already be a challenge, let alone fighting for big change. And sticking your head out can be a bit scary.
Of course nothing gets changed that way, but IMHO it’s an understandable position.
83.
MJFargo | August 15, 2010 at 11:03 am
I moved to San Francisco (from Kansas) in 1990. The degree of organization, committment and work of the GLB&T community to many causes–not just ones that effect them directly–changed my life. True, there are those in all communities who couldn’t care less about legal/political/social issues. But the sheer number of organizations ready to mobilize on many issues, propelled by the GLB&T community, is just…(tired to say) AWEsome. If you need a lift, drop by.
84.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
MJFargo, I think a lot of the political activism and other forms of activism that you see in San Francisco in the Rainbow community has always been there, but there are some areas where it is just more centralized, more vocal, more able to mobilize. And in San Francisco in particular, I am quite sure that Harvey Milk and the way he went about building such diverse coalitions as he ran repeatedly for Board of Supervisors, is part of the legacy he left behind. San Francisco and all areas that have gained activists who for one reason or another have moved to other areas and continued their activism, have benefited from that legacy. And I think this site, and this family that has grown here on P8TT since January, is yet another outgrowth of Harvey’s coalition building. After all, look at the diversity represented here, not only in careers, but in orientations, relationships, age range, life experiences, locations, and the constituency of the families represented within this huge family on P8TT. I think this will be the next big movement to grow out of our previous movements and struggles. And I am so proud of all the family I have met here on P8TT, and feel so blessed to have all of you as near as my keyboard and in some cases as near as the phone.
85.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 11:11 am
Ed,
I agree with you and I think the reason is, there is no one Great Gay Leader in this country, that is a National figure that will inspire people to follow him/her. Perhaps the ideal co-captains would be Lt Dan Choi and Rachel Maddow. If those two could get together and lead they might be able to change the inertia. The other big problem is the HRC a/k/a Gay Inc.
I know my daughter and her wife send them (HRC) money and attend the state banquette and think they are doing what they can to change things. Even this week-end they promised me that they would protest. Well through some miscommunication (which is no ones fault) instead that are at a beach house in Ourter Banks North Carolina being together as 2 families, brother and sister enjoying my daughters last week-end together before she heads back to teaching. She is a supervising teacher so she has to go back extra early. I guess I don’t blame them since they only have each other on the east coast with us being in France, and this was planned earlier in the summer. I at least take comfort int he fact that all 4 of them are bummed out about it. That there was the conflict.
86.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Ed, we have friends and acquaintances here in Cumberland County, North Carolina, who don’t care. They just don’t want to be bothered with anything that they don’t see as having any effect on their lives. And it is not only the issue of marriage equality, it is all issues–DADT, ENDA, DOMA, ADAP funding, Shepherd-Byrd. There are actually some in our community who just don’t give a damn. And I agree with you, it is truly too sad for words alone.
Also, here in Cumberland County, there is no real unity in the LGBTQQI “community.” And I have always believed that you have to have unity before you can have a community.
87.
Alan E. | August 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Janelle Monae – Cold War
I love this new up and coming singer. I bought her album immediately after seeing her perform on Letterman.
88.
BrianT | August 15, 2010 at 10:56 am
Is anyone there for NOM’s last DC event. Their live stream seems to be quite deliberatly avoiding showing the audience.
I’m wondering how many showed up for their “big” finale.
89.
Mark M | August 15, 2010 at 11:02 am
Looks dead…just single people wondering by the camera now and again.
90.
BrianT | August 15, 2010 at 11:06 am
OMG one of the camera men just did a pan in a big circle. its 2:05pm east coast time.
If there were 30 people above and beyond the crew, that would be a very generous count.
Maybe they are all off getting ice cream? :)
91.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
I cannot find the live stream.
Can someone give me the link?
92.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:05 am
Well, Brian is all dressed up real purty-like…..
Ed
93.
BrianT | August 15, 2010 at 11:07 am
True. Looks like he has a new suit.
94.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Did he wash all the Brylcreem out of his hair? Or does he still look like his hair could provide everything except the filter for my next oil change?
95.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:11 am
Drats. I can’t get the video feed to come in! Too many of us over on their web site???
96.
celdd | August 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
I got in – it currently says 55 viewers.
I see they have frisbees on the for sale table.
97.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:17 am
Ah, there it is. Perseverance!
98.
BrianT | August 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
Nah, its a quarter after and the live feed shows 60 viewers.
It was funny, just before Brian announced an additional ten minute delay to walked over to about 6 people who were sitting on the wall behind the presenter area.
To me it looked like he was encouraging them to move in front of the podium if they were actually attending the rally. I couldn’t hear him, but that’s just my guess.
(probably wanted to try to double his attendance)
Anyway, none of them moved. It was amusing.
99.
VoxCanaille | August 15, 2010 at 11:14 am
It would have to be us. The NOM supporters don’t have enough members to slow up a web site.
100.
celdd | August 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
There’s a live chat next to the UStream. No one is commenting.
101.
VoxCanaille | August 15, 2010 at 11:25 am
That’s because all the viewers (our side) are commenting here.
102.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:55 am
My ustream window says 205 viewers. I’m guessing many of those viewers are from here.
103.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:18 am
Oooh, almost 100 now…
104.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:23 am
I wish they could know how many of us viewers are NOT their supporters. I didn’t like hearing them get excited about having 120 viewers when I’m one of those….
105.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 11:25 am
LOL…. I hope we can have a new post from our heroes on the road soon… I don’t think i can stomach watching Brian no-so-brown-suit spewing his filth today… I’m likely to punch something.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
106.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
Does anyone else find the playing of “This Land Is Your Land” a touch ironic?
107.
Ronnie | August 27, 2010 at 10:29 pm
I do…..<3…Ronnie
108.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:20 am
IMPORTANT: Is anyone getting a recording of NOM using Peter Paul & Mary’s song again? Please, PLEASE do! I know for a FACT that the surviving member of this group do NOT want to be associated with these haters.
109.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:21 am
Switching to John Phillips Sousa…. More like what I expected from them.
110.
Kate | August 15, 2010 at 11:40 am
Ooooooh, I can see it now — Peter, Paul and Mary’s Estate suing the NOMbies for copyright infringement!!!!! And Arlo Guthrie suing on behalf of his song-writing father, Woodie!!!!
111.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm
That was supposed to be the surviving members – I didn’t mean to suggest one one member survives.
112.
Kate | August 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm
And I meant “Mary’s Estate” as only hers.
113.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:21 am
Doesn’t seem to be THAT many people there……for their side i mean
Ed
114.
BrianT | August 15, 2010 at 11:25 am
Currently there are more reporters there than attendees. But they say that a ‘bus’ of people are trying to find parking and are waiting for them.
There are -definatly- more people watching this via video stream than in person at the moment.
115.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:23 am
There’s a busload of people trying to find parking? LOL
Umm……yeah…..
Ed
116.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 11:24 am
They can’t even start a revolution on time. Waiting for a busload of people… ssuuure.
I sincerely hope our side is having more fun.
117.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 11:28 am
Wouldn’t it be awesome if the busload was P8TT folks? Ronnie and Sagesse and all our friends that went to DC… it would be soo cool to pull up to their non-event with a
busfleetload of quality fighters :)Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
118.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:29 am
I was just fervently hoping the same thing.
119.
Sagesse | August 15, 2010 at 11:32 am
I’m many hundreds of miles away, watching the live feed, like everyone else here :).
120.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I heard them say they were “bussing in” some people from Pennsylvania… because, you know… they’re not the segregationists.
121.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm
sincerely hope our side is having more fun
@Sagesse. We always do. It scares them.
122.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:25 am
This is *THE* trainwreck you simply cannot stop watching…..
LOL
Ed
123.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:28 am
150 views……well, how many gays are watching?
ME ME ME
LOL
124.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Me. Well, I’m bi :)
125.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 9:10 pm
That means they’ll count you as two, then. :)
126.
Mark M | August 15, 2010 at 11:30 am
Louis looks as goofy as ever.
Hi Louis!
127.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I’m only getting audio feed now – no video. Anyone else? btw, can you hear the woman in the background ranting to someone about their “homosexual lifestyle”?
128.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 11:31 am
I don’t see a thing. Specifically on this web page
http://www.marriagetour2010.com/2010/08/live-broadcast-of-rally-for-marriage-at-2pm-et-today/
where is the video supposed to be playing??? After the short paragraph text I just see white space, no video player or anything? Where do I see this? I do see over ont he right side, Webcam chat but it is black.
129.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:32 am
Over in the right-hand side bar. Hit the play arrow. (I did the same thing.)
130.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 11:48 am
I guess I am just not going to be able to see this.
If you could be a bit more specific than jsut “Over in the right-hand side bar. Hit the play arrow. (I did the same thing.)”
The play arrow on what?
On the right hand side I see
Next Tour Stop DC
Then a video Player with marriage Supporters Bullied
Then a black screen that says Webcam Chat at UStream
Then Bus Tour Photo Album
Then Tweets
Anybody????
131.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ohhhh, I don’t think I can actually watch this. Wish I could be “storming the stage” instead of stewing at my computer. Puke!
132.
VoxCanaille | August 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
Sorry, I had to give up. I couldn’t listen to that any longer. Number should drop by one.
133.
Mark M | August 15, 2010 at 11:34 am
This is making me sick to my stomach…..I think I may actually HATE Brian
134.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:36 am
OK, what are the consequences?
1. Redefine what is at the root of a ‘good society.’
2. Calling religious people bigots. They will be punished, repressed, and marginalized. Putting Catholic Charities out of business because they won’t allow same-sex couples to adopt. Taxing a church that discriminates. Teaching children that gays are OK.
Well, I’m all for these consequences, personally.
135.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 11:38 am
Teaching children that gays are OK.
That’s a good thing, in my book. I don’t want to have children taught by our government to fear us.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
136.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:36 am
We’ve had great turnouts?
um….compared to what?
Ed
137.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The attendance at the local high school on Senior Skip Day, perhaps?
138.
JC (1 of the 18,000 in CA) | August 15, 2010 at 11:37 am
Oh crap. Warping MLK’s words. Gotta log off.
139.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 11:38 am
So many of us logging off that site because we’re too disgusted to watch… what’s the viewership numbers down to now? lol
140.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:40 am
He’s actually talking about their civil rights……what a maroon….
141.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:42 am
I think they somehow turned off MY video stream…..
I mean, I knew they wouldn’t let me post on their site anymore, but damn, turning off my video stream is a bit…..extreme….
Ed
142.
Kate | August 15, 2010 at 11:44 am
Consider it a compliment, Ed!
143.
AndrewPDX | August 15, 2010 at 11:45 am
But just like everything else… they’re doing it for your protection!
144.
Ed | August 15, 2010 at 11:44 am
The video comments are largely siding with US, the good guys
145.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 11:53 am
I guess I am just not going to be able to see this.
If you could be a bit more specific than jsut “Over in the right-hand side bar. Hit the play arrow. (I did the same thing.)”
The play arrow on what?
On the right hand side I see
Next Tour Stop DC
Then a video Player with marriage Supporters Bullied
Then a black screen that says Webcam Chat at UStream
Then Bus Tour Photo Album
Then Tweets
Anybody????
146.
celdd | August 15, 2010 at 11:55 am
don’t know why your computer is not loading the video. Do you have a pop up blocker that may be censoring it? Just a suggestion.
147.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Yes I do! Does this pop up in a seperate window?
148.
celdd | August 15, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Mine had a little video screen on thier main page, when when I clicked the arrow, the Ustream popped up in a separate window.
Oh!!! Idea!!! here is the link for the Ustream directly:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/marriagetour2010
149.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 11:53 am
From Brian, “The Civil Rights Movement from the middle of this century…” He’s confused about what century he’s living in, but then we knew that, didn’t we?
150.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Brian is confused about everything except how long he needs to keep the cash coming in to NOM’s coffers to pay his salary so that he can put the kids through college and pay his house off.
151.
celdd | August 15, 2010 at 11:56 am
Where are the counter-protest folks?
152.
Straight Grandmother | August 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
New Topic started
153.
adambink | August 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Hey all, many updates posted in the new thread.
154.
Chuck S | August 15, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Just happened to find this as i was browsing the web, haven’t seen or heard mention of it anywhere else:
Mexico Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognized throughout the country. Kind of a reverse-DOMA.
Here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/mexico-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_678016.html
155.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Olé!
156.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 15, 2010 at 9:39 pm
So they actually honor their version of the Full Faith and Credit Clause….
157.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Have you all seen this?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-gay-marriage-20100815,0,6839883.story?track=rss
Erwin Chemirinsky, no slouch on matters of law, analyzes that all-important issue many of us had never heard of until just recently — standing.
158.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Thank you for this link, Ann S. Of course, I have to remember not to read the comments after the article. It is very obvious that none of the commenters has any training in Constitutional law, or in any law, for that matter. And that most of them are lacking even the most basic understanding of civics and the true meaning of the terms conservative and liberal.
159.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I didn’t even look at the comments. I have given up reading comments for the most part, unless someone tells me that they are funny or otherwise worthwhile. I think reading the comments lowers the IQ, personally.
160.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Here’s another interesting article on the question of standing. Michael Dorf of Cornell’s law school argues that if there is no standing, the 9th Circuit might vacate Walker’s ruling. I gather that this means we win by default, in that no one with standing to defend was willing to do so.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100809.html
While that would be less satisfying (sort of like winning a baseball game because the other team just didn’t show up), it would still let marriages begin again in California.
FWIW, my BIL (a former litigator) thinks the 9th Circuit is likely to rule on the motion for stay well before Wednesday, perhaps as early as tomorrow (Monday). He thinks they are unlikely to cut it at all close by ruling Wednesday.
Me, I have no idea about that, but we will know in a few days.
I hate to be the voice of doom, and I really do hope marriages begin again Wednesday, but let’s all keep in mind that they very well might not. I hated seeing everyone so hurt last week.
161.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I saw that article before, Ann. While I certainly won’t pretend to more about con law than Dorf, I just don’t see that happening. And he seems to be the only one I’ve seen suggest that consequence. In the other cases where Article III standing was denied, was there any question of vacating the district court decision?
I’ve suspected we might hear from the 9th Circuit tomorrow. For me, the big question is: If they do deny the stay pending appeal, will they issue another temporary stay to give more time to appeal to the SC, or will they leave that to the SC to do if it wants to? Oh, all the possibilities…..
BTW, I’ll be around in the am to get the Reply to everyone, but I’ll be gone in the middle of the afternoon and may not be around when the 9th Circuit issues its ruling. I’m sure the Court will publish it on its website so everyone should be able to get it right away.
162.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm
And thanks to you, I have it bookmarked, so if you aren’t here to upload it to scribd, I will upload it. And yes, I have subscribed to you–bookaholic1963.
163.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm
And when I post the link to it, is that just a simple copy and paste?
164.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
@Kathleen, I believe that in trying to find this article again after having closed the window the first time, I came across something saying that vacating the district court decision is exactly what happened in the AOE case. I’ll try to find that again if I can.
165.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I thought it was the 9th Circuit decision that was vacated, but maybe I’m confusing it with another case — I’ve been reading so many of the opinion pieces lately, that I’m getting some of the facts jumbled in my head.
166.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm
@Kathleen, the 9th Circuit ruling was definitely vacated. I now (of course) can’t find the article I thought I saw earlier.
But this one also contains some interesting discussions (including in the comments, which are not wingnutty) about standing and whether Walker’s decision would be vacate: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2010/08/standing-on-the-brain.html
I have so little knowledge of this area of the law I can’t comment intelligently.
167.
Ann S. | August 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@Kathleen, found it: http://volokh.com/2010/08/15/standing-to-defend-prop-8/
Scroll down to a comment by someone going by “BZ”, who says he or she argued the AOE case before the 9th Circuit and the SCOTUS.
“When Justice Stevens, as he often did, asked me at the end of argument what I wanted the Court to do, I asked that they decide the merits, but if they couldn’t, that they vacate all the way down. They did, with a relatively unusual citation to Munsingwear, which holds that a vacated case should spawn no consequences because the reasoning was not upheld.”
I read “vacate all the way down” to mean including the district court ruling, but I could be wrong about that.
168.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Thanks, Ann. I’ll try to find time to read these in the morning.
169.
Kathleen | August 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm
and I concur “vacate all the way down” sound like District Court to me. I’ll try to absorb these article in the am.
170.
Ann S. | August 16, 2010 at 8:12 am
@Kathleen, I haven’t had time to fully read these things in a thoughtful manner yet, myself, LOL. I’m throwing these out there as food for thought, and also because someone (sorry, can’t remember who) suggested that if Walker’s ruling is vacated, that we lose. I still think that if it is vacated, we win by default.
171.
Jaymax | August 16, 2010 at 6:57 am
I came across a link to these youtube videos in another forum.
They are an excellent overview of the legal aspects of the Prop Ruling and well worth watching.
172.
Ray | August 16, 2010 at 9:35 am
So the 9th Ckd schedule that I saw seemed to say that the h8ers had till 9:00 am to file a reply “if any”
Anybody know, did they file anything?
173.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 16, 2010 at 10:35 am
Yes. Kathleen posted the link earlier. I will go find it and post it underneath this one for you, Ray.
174.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 16, 2010 at 10:39 am
Here you go, Ray.
This is the link Kathleen posted earlier with the Prop H8 folks’ rambling reply.
175.
Ray | August 16, 2010 at 11:22 am
Thanks very much, Richard!
176. Propeller Ball Cap | August 18, 2010 at 7:59 pm
[…] Los Angeles County preparing to extend hours, ceremony … Far better would be for the Prop 8 proponents themselves to decide not to bring an appeal. David Barton of the American Family Association has already floated that idea. If conservatives cave in on their own, they'd implicitly concede how terribly weak their case was at trial, And I have to wear a baseball cap and my sunglasses when I go outside too, otherwise, my eyes are so sensitive to the sunlight that I start sneezing, no matter what season it is. […]