Obliterating the arguments of Focus on the Family and Edwin Meese

August 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm 266 comments

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

Focus on the Family’s Jenny Tyree has highlighted what she finds to be the strongest arguments from a recent Op-Ed penned by conservative personality Edwin Meese. So that being the case, we will now look at those same arguments, then proceed to obliterate them. Let’s get started.

#1:

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.

The supposed “binding Supreme Court precedent” is 1972’s Baker v. Nelson. And it was not completely unacknowledged — Judge Walker pointedly asked Ted Olson about that very case in the closing day of arguments:

THE COURT: Well, now, the Supreme Court in the Baker vs. Nelson case, decided that the issue which we are confronted with here was not ripe for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. That was 1972. What’s happened in the 38 years since 1972?


MR. OLSON:
Well, a great deal has happened. Among the things that have happened is the Romer case. Among the things that have happened is the Lawrence vs. Texas case. You know what those cases involve. A lot of other things have happened. Changes in the ballot propositions. California has adopted something completely different than the state — I guess it was Minnesota or Michigan, involved in that case. So there are a lot of factual situations that are different. This case is very different.

And, by the way, the Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to take a miscegenation case. Now, I think it was — Dr. Cott testified to this. I think it was 1955. And then they took the case, the Loving case, in 1967.

CONTD: Closing Arguments [AFER]

But as Olson mentions: The reality of both the world and the law has greatly changed since 1972. Romer v. Evans. Lawrence v. Texas. DOMA and anti-LGBT ballot initiatives, which while anti-equality, certainly raise new legal questions about the constitutionality of bias that did not exist in 1972. Plus the undeniable reality that is five U.S. states and one jurisdiction in our nation’s capital with equality, as well as the many other countries with marriage equality abroad. And the civil unions and domestic partnerships that are spread all over, including in California.

So it is absurd to suggest that a 38-year-old, one sentence order that dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question” (and that was heavily based in the procreation argument) has bound the Supreme Court’s gavels here in 2010. In the almost four decades since, other SCOTUS and legislative matters have changed the law and thus distinguished the two cases. And the matter before the court is the unconstitutionality of current law, not that which existed when Marcia Brady was still on first-run TV!

#2:

Sound judicial opinions consider the facts and evidence on both sides of an argument, apply them fairly to the dispute at hand and determine which legal cases are on point. Yet Walker’s opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist.

Absolute bullshit! Walker’s 136-page decision totally acknowledged the (weak) evidence and (few) “experts” that the Prop 8 proponents presented. He simply rejected it. BIG TIME! Why can’t social conservatives understand that? Weighing evidence is kinda, sorta what Judge Walker is supposed to do.

#3:

Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker’s opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact.

Hogwash again. Judge Walker did not deny the relevance of reproduction AT ALL. What he denied is the idea that procreation (or the lack thereof) should have any bearing on a couple’s civil marriage status! That is a MAJOR difference.

The procreation argument may have had its run in court. But in a world where all opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry regardless of child status, where no child quotas are attached to the civil marriage license, and where gay and lesbian couples are parenting at higher rates than ever before, it’s just plain common sense to see that the procreation argument has crossed its tipping point. Even a non-mandated child can see that.

#4:

Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted “without reason” and demonstrates “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples.”

This one is particularly galling. Because here we are talking about the Prop 8 campaign, one that heavily relied on religious figures (e.g. Jim Garlow, Lou Engle, Miles McPherson, Chris Clark, the Mormon church, Bishop Cordileone, the usual “pro-family” national groups and figureheads) and on arguments that said or implied gay couples would somehow scare kids in schools (e.g. the ads about school books, the ad about a lesbian teacher taking her class to her wedding ceremony, etc.). So yes, OF COURSE Judge Walker found that a “private moral view” was used to suggest that same-sex couples are less than ideal! Because that is what the “pro-family” side did. And does. Daily.

But Judge Walker *did not* ignore “everything courts typically rely on”: In actuality, it’s the anti-LGBT side that did! They ignored the crucial elements of credible witnesses, facts that can withstand scrutiny, and arguments that cut the constitutional mustard! The judge even took note, asking them if they were sure they were satisfied with what they had presented. But they were. Even though they shouldn’t have been.

Although to be frank, what else did they really have — Matt Barber’s “ex-gay” suggestion?! Oh how we wish they’d have gone there!

#5:

The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker’s decision delivered.

No, the truth is that the independent judiciary demands more respect than the anti-equality forces are delivering! In the days since Walker’s decision, we’ve heard the anti-LGBT troops drum up innuendo about the judge’s sexuality, cherry-pick and reduce the most conveniently spinnable lines from the lengthy opinion, ignore or excuse their own incredibly feeble court presence, war with each other, and of course attack the courts as “activist.” Some have even suggested that they would simply ignore a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of equality. All because they think that minority rights should, for the first time in history, be terminally stifled because of the whims of a bare, drastically changing majority.

It’s easy to write off a (Republican-appointed) judge as a “liberal gay activist” rather than objectively look at what led him to his findings. But this easy, baseless route is what led the social conservatives to their increasingly losing position on this (non)issue. The more they refuse to reflect, the easier time we will have turning Walker’s legal template into one that higher courts will mirror.

Oh, and let’s not forget, Mr. Meese: When it comes to Vaughn Walker’s booty on the federal bench, you only have yourself to blame!

*Jenny Tyree’s piece, with all Meese quotes and link back to his full Op-Ed: Meese: Judge Walker’s decision not the definitive word [FOtF]

Entry filed under: Right-wing, Trial analysis.

My last day with Prop 8 Trial Tracker Focus on the Family vs. Focus on the Family

266 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Ыгиыскшиштп

    Reply
    • 2. Felyx  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm

      Gjlgbcadibcm! You Russian Fool!! Love, Felyx :P

      Reply
      • 3. RebeccaRGB  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm

        Doscbthm?

        Reply
      • 4. Felyx  |  August 25, 2010 at 9:31 am

        @Rebecca

        To understand this it helps to be Anglo-Russian technologically bilingual.

        Basically we are just playing linguistic related code games with each other.

        Love,
        Felyx

        Reply
  • 5. Freddy  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    I’ll have the ham and swiss please

    Reply
    • 6. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      I still like the pastrami w/ spicy mustard.

      Reply
    • 7. Alan E.  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      Hot dog and watermelon for me please! We actually have summer weather in San Francisco, and I need to celebrate it with standard BBQ items.

      Reply
      • 8. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:47 pm

        Does that include the 15 piece bucket of KFC?

        Reply
      • 9. Dave P.  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:31 pm

        Hi Richard – I love that KFC chicken but I HATE their politics. Don’t give those b*stards another dime! They use our own money to take away our rights by making corporate donations to extreme right wing anti-gay organizations.

        Reply
    • 10. Ann S.  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:24 pm

      Egg salad, please. kthxbai

      Reply
    • 11. JonT  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:07 pm

      I’ll take obliteration for 25 quatloos. Hold the meece.

      Reply
      • 12. Felyx  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:11 pm

        How many quatloos for obscure ST references, Provider?… ! Felyx :P

        Reply
      • 13. JonT  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:36 pm

        Ha! I’ve got a million of them Felyx. :)

        Reply
  • 14. Dave in ME  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    This Meese piece appeared in today’s Bangor Daily News, but I couldn’t find it on the site. I see now that it’s from a week or so ago. I’m glad it’s being addressed here.

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
  • 15. Michelle Evans  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Funny how the religious whack jobs always want to put things to a vote (if it might benefit themselves), but go running to the court to overturn something the moment they feel slighted. Look at what happened just yesterday when a christian group went to court and won a ruling that now bars stem cell research. Why don’t they want the people to vote on the idea of all who may die because the ability to save lives with this research has now (and possibly forever) been stifled by this garbage?

    Another case of religious dogma over science and common sense.

    Reply
    • 16. Cat  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:54 pm

      That’s another reason why having courts is great. In court you can’t (usually) get away with saying you’re really rich outside of the court, and then saying in court you’re poor, just because that would benefit you most.

      “The storm is coming! Teh gayz must be feared, because, well, you know, … (wink, wink)” vs. “We don’t have anything against those friendly gays, we just feel marriage is not appropriate for them”.

      There shall be only one truth!

      Reply
    • 17. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:09 pm

      I’m sorry, Mr. Meese… My karma ran over your dogma.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
    • 19. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:17 am

      It’s so frustrating. I get so angry and worked up over this. Our Founding Fathers are probably rolling in their graves right now. They came here to escape religious tyranny, and now look at what our country has become! I find it interesting that the Religious Right wants small government, unless you’re gay or not Christian. Then they want the government to tell you what to do. Part of me wants to say “eff this” and move to Canada….but I know that things will only change in this country if we stand together and fight.

      Reply
  • 20. Sagesse  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Just watched the Laramie Project on HBO. One step at a time.

    Reply
    • 21. Alan E.  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:55 pm

      I went to see the play when t was travelling. I cried so hard the entire time. In my ASL class in high school, every quarter we had to sign a song of our choosing. The very first song was chosen by our teacher for the entire class to do, which we did individually, then as a group in front of the whole school. The chosen song was “Scarecrow” by Melissa Etheridge. It was a tough song to do as a closeted kid in Virginia, but I’m proud of my teacher for having us do it. (it was a “secret” that she was a lesbian but everyone knew it)

      Reply
      • 22. Michelle Evans  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        Wonderful play and movie. Always sad to watch, however. One of the very first things, when I got out of my 3-month stint in the hospital last year, was that I was asked to be part of a panel discussion on LGBT issues following a local production of The Laramie Project. I could barely walk at the time, but I’m very glad to have been a small part of what they accomplished.

        A few months back I was able to meet Judy Shepard at a book signing event. Serendipitous that I happened to be in Arizona at the same time she was there. The book she has written about Matthew was a powerful read.

        http://www.mach25media.com/shepard.html

        Reply
      • 23. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:19 am

        That song is so, so sad. It makes me cry every time. I cannot even imagine what it must have been for Matthew’s family. =(

        Reply
    • 24. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      I have to really space watching films like that far apart….because it’s all just too horrifying and sad.

      Another real (enlightening) downer is Soldier’s Girl, made by HBO in 2003.

      Uggghhh.

      Reply
      • 25. Ed  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm

        Agree, it was a very emotional movie, and his real life parents are calling for the end of DADT, but, it was Showtime, not HBO. Regardless, wonderful movie.

        Reply
      • 26. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        Thanks! I knew it was some cable chanel. They make the best movies now.

        Reply
  • 27. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    “The matter before the court is the unconstitutionality of current law, not that which existed when Marcia Brady was still on first-run TV!”

    This just made me spit up, a bit. NOT pretty!

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! !

    Reply
  • 28. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Also, THIS: “The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker’s decision delivered.”

    Oh, NOW the matter needed MORE ‘careful consideration’.

    The Prop H8 side initially wanted a Summary Judgement, which would have side-stepped a trial entirely!

    Reply
  • 29. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Meeses scares me to pieces….people with such twisted views chill me to the bone. They are far more dangerous to our society at large than most realize IMHGO :-)

    Reply
  • 30. Bolt  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I will give Mz. Tyree credit for arguing on the merits of this case. We’re going to destroy the Ds pathetic defense of proposition 8. It’s already happened, but they don’t know it.

    Reply
  • 31. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    In fact, Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III….

    Pwned.

    Reply
  • 32. Bolt  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Justice Scalia opinion:

    If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

    This is the albatross of the religious reich.

    Reply
  • 33. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    I hate Meeses to pieces!!!

    Reply
    • 34. Freddy  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      I was wondering how long it would take for that line to show up.

      Reply
    • 35. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm

      so, I see I am not the only fan of Pixie, Dixie, and Mr. Jinks on here. Is that right, Paul?

      Reply
      • 36. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:12 pm

        Let’s just say that every time I see or hear the name “Edwin Meese,” that line goes through my head.

        Can’t imagine why…. :)

        Reply
      • 37. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:14 pm

        Other than the man’s stupidity?

        Reply
      • 38. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm

        Surely there’s another reason, although a cogent one escapes me at the moment.

        It must be the heat….

        :)

        Reply
      • 39. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm

        I hate those meeses to pieces!

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
  • 40. Straight Grandmother  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Welcome to the show Jeremy.
    #5:

    The rule of law demands more careful consideration of this important issue than Walker’s decision delivered.

    Basically what he is saying is the Judge Walker ruled capriciously. This leads me to believe he has not taken the time to read the very readable 138 page verdict. I think Judge Walker considered this a lot prior to ruling, the H8ters just don’t like the verdict is all.

    Reply
    • 41. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      The really bizarre thing is, I think Meese etc. have all read the legal briefs, etc. and continue to just say anything they want. It’s a very weird nevernever land they live in, completely disconnected from anything that’s really going on!

      It’s become like the Mercedes Rhule character says in the movie Gia: “How do you know a drug addict’s lying? Their lips are moving.”

      Reply
      • 42. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:33 pm

        I was just reading a speech given by Franklin Kameny in 1964 called Civil Liberties: A Progress Report where he likens the gay rights and the racial rights movements as similar.

        His view on educating the prejudiced:

        The prejudiced mind, and that is what we are fighting, is not penetrated by information and is not educable….If one presents to a scientific audience nine points in favor of a particular viewpoint, and a tenth point which is doubtful, the scientific audience will grant that the viewpoint has a 90% chance of being correct. Present the same nine points to a person of prejudiced mind, and the first nine points will slide off, as water off a duck’s back, and in seeking to retain his prejudices he will seize upon the uncertainty in the tenth, and will say “See, even they agree with me, so I must be right.” And become more confirmed in his beliefs than before

        Sound familiar?

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 43. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:33 pm

        That’s a very insightful quote!

        Is the whole speech available online? I did a quick search and saw it cited several places, but not in its entirety. (And isn’t that word fun to say? Must find a way to use it in a sentence alongside tyranny?)

        Reply
      • 44. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:48 pm

        I don’t know if Kameny’s speech is online anywhere… I’m reading a book:
        Dailey, James, ed. Great Speeches on Gay Rights, Mineola, NY: Dover, 2010.

        sorry, it’s been ages since I’ve had to add a bibliography to a report, had to look it up again… hope I got it right :)
        If you need, the ISBN is 0-486-47512-3

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 45. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:02 pm

        Part of it is available online here.
        http://tinyurl.com/2a7679t

        Unfortunately, the last part of it is in the section not included in the google book view.

        Reply
      • 46. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm

        @Kathleen, yup that’s the speech :) The book I’m reading starts with an eulogy for Walt Whitman and a speech likening the women’s rights movements to those of the “Urning” (We’re from Uranus? didn’t know that), and goes on from there… it’s interesting that the NOMzies think it’s a new thing for us to liken our struggle to those of race and sex in the 20th century, yet here are the speeches from those times saying the same things.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 47. Straight Grandmother  |  August 25, 2010 at 2:33 am

        Now that I think about it I agree with you.They know the truth but count on the fact that very few people will actually go read the whole decision, so they just pull Discrimitory “facts” out of their ass and throw it out counting on their adherents following them, ignorently blind to the truth.

        Ed Meese, and people like him, remind me of that minister we saw in Rhode Island who spoke in tongue. They create a spectacle and project an aura of spiritual (or in the case of Meese moral) superiority. “Follow me, follow me. I am the way the truth and the light.” They don’t mind winning using underhanded tactics including flat out lies, and lo and behold people to follow them and worse yet send them money.

        Reply
  • 48. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Once again, a great piece that fully examines the facts and the lack of consideration the anti-equality folks want to give those facts. The Edwin Meese Op-Ed is nothing more than another fear-mongering piece. But it is good to know about these, otherwise, how can we combat the nonsense and inanities contained therein?

    Reply
    • 49. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:53 pm

      I thought that Meese died years ago.

      Reply
      • 50. nightshayde  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:02 pm

        Perhaps it was just the section of his brain which governs logic.

        Reply
  • 51. Sagesse  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    The one thing this case has that none of their precedents has is the body of evidence presented at trial. The religious right go on about superseded precedents and superseded research from mediocre, ideologically-motivated experts.

    If this case ever sees the inside of the Supreme Court, the Justices will not be looking back over their shoulders at what came before; they have to confront the trial record in front of them.

    Reply
  • 52. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Ah, proof yet again that it doesn’t take brains to breed.

    Reply
  • 53. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    It’s not at all surprising Meese is so opposed to marriage equality…..his views on sexual expression are well documented
    His commissioned study on the effects of pornography on society pretty much took away any doubt on his personal views on sex in general.
    He is a bitter old man with a hateful outlook on life.
    IMHGO

    Reply
    • 54. Marlene  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm

      I remember when Meese assembled his so-called “commission” studying the effects of pornography.

      As is typical of the religious reicht, they had a conclusion already in place, and was going to twist whatever evidence they found to fit it. When the *real* scientists found this out, they left in droves and denounced the entire process!!

      Meese is about as objective as any other far-right conservative.

      Reply
      • 55. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        The only thing missing from that report (other than facts ) was Meese trying to blame it all on ‘the gays’

        Reply
  • 56. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    UPDATE: Order by Judge Walker Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File for Costs and Fees. Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time is GRANTED. Any motion for fees and costs shall be filed not later than thirty days after all appeals of the August 12, 2010 judgment are final.

    Reply
    • 57. Jennifer Gail  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      YES!

      Reply
    • 58. Bolt  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:58 pm

      The reason the costs and fees aspect is so interesting is because it’s like a legal harpoon in the ribs of the law firms supporting 8. How long will they have to pay, once their bill has been submitted, for defending this law?

      Reply
      • 59. Carpool Cookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:22 pm

        I’m just waiting for them to start griping about the cost. Like, a Holy War has a secular cash value all of a sudden? A few thousand dollars more and they’d be willing to cast (the alleged) god’s (alleged) will aside?

        I guess the Mormons will just be bid to dig deeper at some point, to throw even more money away. If it was primarily their money that got the defendants into this mess, so they should eventually help bail them out, morally speaking.

        Reply
    • 60. Ray in MA  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:36 pm

      Is this a similar type of cost recovery?

      The Westboro Baptist Church made headlines again this week because the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Al Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, to pay over $16,000 in legal fees for the church’s defense.

      http://politicalcartel.org/2010/04/01/in-support-of-the-westboro-baptist-church/

      Reply
      • 61. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:29 am

        That makes me absolutely SICK. I hope the deepest part of hell has been reserved for those @$$holes.

        Reply
    • 62. Leo  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:55 pm

      “Finally, the case is unlikely to fade quickly from the court’s memory.”

      LOL!

      Reply
      • 63. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:57 pm

        I know! Don’t you love it??!?

        Reply
      • 64. Ann S.  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:15 am

        I love Judge Walker’s dry humor.

        Reply
    • 65. Cat  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:40 pm

      Walker writes: Moreover, the government defendants do not oppose an extension of time, suggesting that the amount of attorney fees sought by plaintiffs will not inform their decisions whether to appeal. Can this be translated as: “Dear Defendant-Intervenors, do not forget that you are NOT the defendants, just the intervenors” ?

      Reply
  • 66. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, … the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.

    This statement is false. Judge Walker determined that the Baker precedent was not applicable in his Order to Deny Summary Judgment. There was no need for further discussion in the Opinion. If the D-Is are granted standing, they are perfectly capable of raising the denial of summary judgment on appeal, even though it was in an earlier order.

    Reply
    • 67. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm

      I just edited the Wikipedia entry on Baker to reflect that Walker discussed Baker in his earlier ruling. Since I have reservations about too drastically altering wiki’s I left in the part about no discussion in the final ruling. I think I did a good job of preserving the original article while clarifying the role Baker played.

      Any improvements? Remember to play nice – no edit wars, please.

      Reply
      • 68. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:39 pm

        I’ve edited a little at wikipedia…but people seem REALLY protective of articles they’re regulars at, and in my encounters it’s been whoever’s the most determined to include something or not wins….which can take forever.

        Looks like a great update, though : )

        Reply
    • 69. Ray in MA  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:25 pm

      How about a link?

      Reply
      • 70. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm

        Ray, what link are you looking for? Maybe I can help.

        Reply
      • 71. Ray in MA  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:44 pm

        Kathleen, You are too kind… part of my job is to support a web site… and people continually fail to provide a reference link, which would make my job easier… I could find this Wikipedia entry if I wanted… I guess I was making a public point that it would have been helpful if Kevin had included a link.

        Thanx anyway!!!!!

        Reply
      • 72. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm

        Sorry I got distracted while writing and forgot to link.

        Reply
  • 73. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Ha ha — my favorite part is Walker’s retort to the DIs who argued that Plaintiffs’ fees should be determined while the case “is still fresh in mind” :

    “Finally, the case is unlikely to fade quickly from the court’s memory.”

    Reply
    • 74. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:52 pm

      Sorry — that was supposed to go below Kathleen’s post of August 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm.

      Reply
    • 75. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:02 pm

      I know. I love Walker’s sense of humor! He manages to write a funny into something as dry as a motion on a filing deadline extension. :)

      Reply
      • 76. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        He is truly the master of the understatement. And the DIs are so witless, they don’t even recognize that he has zinged them.

        Reply
      • 77. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        I suspect they know.

        Reply
      • 78. Ann S.  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm

        I think they know, and it’s killing them, but they can’t do or say a thing.

        Reply
      • 79. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:49 pm

        I also liked in one of his rulings when Walker said something like, “The defendants are free to use this time to attempt to win the state over to appealing.” Whis is factual, but I’m sure they were like, “Yeah, right, THAT’S gonna happen!”

        Reply
      • 80. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:43 pm

        I think my favorite zinger was when Walker denied the extended stay because none of the DIs had indicated a desire to enter into same sex marriage.

        Reply
  • 81. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Wyoming couple file suit in federal court to challenge denial of marriage license.
    http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/08/24/wyoming-gay-couple-sues-because-they-cannot-get-married

    Reply
    • 82. Freddy  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:08 pm

      And once again “There is a storm coming!”

      Reply
    • 83. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm

      uh…… self-represented? They won’t stand a chance with a crackerjack legal team.

      Reply
      • 84. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm

        I meant “without,” of course……..

        Reply
      • 85. Ann S.  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:18 pm

        I hope someone steps in and helps them.

        Reply
      • 86. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:26 pm

        Let’s hope at least one of them is an actual lawyer..UGH

        Reply
    • 87. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:23 pm

      Justia site shows case was filed August 13.
      http://dockets.justia.com/docket/wyoming/wydce/2:2010cv00166/21460/

      Reply
  • 88. Rightthingtodo TX  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    is someone going to post jeremy’s excellent rebuttal on ms. tyree’s blog in the comments section? i suppose i could.

    Reply
  • 89. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    OT: Any chance there’s anyone here in northernmost California who’d like some nice organic free-range eggs? My chickens are laying up a storm, and I’d love to be able to pass some of these wonderful eggs on to good folks here.

    Reply
    • 90. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:51 pm

      Can we throw them at the other side?

      Reply
      • 91. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm

        Definitely NOT, Cookie!!!! These are very, very nice eggs.

        Reply
      • 92. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:55 pm

        No, let’s not do that! If we are going to throw eggs at them, get the ones from Hillandale Farms and Wright County Farms. Those are the ones that have been recalled. Let’s not waste Kate’s good free-range eggs. Let’s use those to bake lots of wedding cakes.

        Reply
      • 93. fiona64  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        Never waste food when people are going hungry.

        I’m just sayin’ …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 94. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm

        @Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)

        Thank you, Richard! My chickens feel much better now. They definitely like the idea of making wedding cakes with these lovely eggs.

        Reply
      • 95. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:59 pm

        Of course, I will be back shortly. All this talk of eggs has made me hungry, so I am off to make BZ and myself an omelet.

        Reply
      • 96. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

        I second the idea of wedding cakes with the eggs… that would be so awesome!

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 97. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

        @AndrewPDX – Hey, this gives us another argument for the 9th immediately ruling in our favor and lifting the stay — these eggs won’t last forever!!!!

        Reply
      • 98. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:10 pm

        While I would gladly use eggs for a wedding cake, eggs like these really deserve to be served soft boiled, so you can enjoy all the organic free range goodness. :)

        Reply
      • 99. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        Okay, so no throwing of Kate’s nice eggs…just the recalled-from-the-supermarket kind. (I am sure when I got in possession of Kate’s lovely beauties, I wouldn’t want to part with them, anyway.)

        Hey! I just learned how to hardboil eggs correctly! Push a pin through the shell at one end, to allow air to escape during cooking. Then start them on a low flame until just before water reaches boiling…turn off heat and let water completely cool. Plunge cooked eggs in ice water, and peel.

        They will not be rubbery, and won’t stick to the shell when peeled.

        Reply
      • 100. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:22 pm

        @carpoolcookie

        Did you know that you can’t hardboil fresh eggs? Only the ancient store-bought ones will actually hardboil.

        Reply
      • 101. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm

        Really???? Gosh……I seem to be on an “egg-abuse” rampage today : ( I don’t know if I’ve ever actually had a farm fresh egg before, now that I think of it!

        Reply
      • 102. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:56 pm

        Aw, Cookie, we know you’re not really a chicken basher. Tell me how to upload a photo into a post here, and I’ll send you some virtual fresh eggs.

        Reply
      • 103. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm

        Thank’s Kate. I am not a chicken basher!

        I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

        But back on topic: You get the avatar to appear by doing something called “gavatar” (?) Someone posted a link when I asked. You upload a pic there….but I think it then becomes your default avatar everywhere you post on the web, using the same email address as here? (I’m not quite clear on that part.) One way around that would be to use a new email account here with the same user name, and maybe just your new posts will have that avatar…and the old ones will stay untouched, but so will other posts across the net where you don’t WANT that avatar…I will have to ponder this. I’m sure someone will come to our rescue and explain the options better.

        Reply
      • 104. nightshayde  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm

        It’s actually “gravatar” (www dot gravatar dot com), and it’s very easy to use.

        Reply
    • 105. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm

      I’m thinking particularly these people, who kept meeting regularly outside a gay couple’s home to read the Bible aloud, could use them. (They previously caused a lesbian couple to move.)

      Reply
      • 106. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm

        Their book proves the existence of God the way “The Night Before Christmas” proves the existence of Santa Claus.

        Reply
      • 107. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:48 pm

        Good for that neighborhood, chasing those folks off. I think if it were me, I would sit on the edge of MY lawn, with a girlfriend, and make out. With earplugs in, of course.

        :)

        Reply
      • 108. carpoolcookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:05 pm

        Oh my! They would have a heart attack!

        One of the FUNNIEST things I ever saw in my LIFE was at a gay pride parade, and there was some cool girl in a bustier, a really short swirly skirt, cropped hair and a hoola hoop.

        There was the usual hateful Westboro-type group behind some saw horses on the sidelines, with their signs and their loud speakers…and they were preaching and yelling insults at the crowd, and I saw her just staring at them for a while.

        Then she carefully went a few feet in front of them and started doing this gymnastic dance…leaning over and shaking herself at them, actually flipping up her skirt (she was wearing panties), turning her back and doing these reach-around moves, etc. etc. She kept this up for about 5 minutes (!) while we were all cheering and dancing, and these awful people were just FREAKING OUT!

        That lady was so cool! And I really got the feeling she was straight, too, which made it even more touching. My gaydar didn’t go off at all. I will NEVER forget her!

        Reply
    • 109. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm

      That would be a terrible waste. Kate, you have chickens and bees? I’m soooo jealous. We grow organic veggies in our front yard instead of a lawn, but we don’t have enough land to comply with LA County regs for keeping chickens.

      Reply
      • 110. fiona64  |  August 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm

        One of our neighbors has converted their front lawn to a truck garden.

        We considered doing the same, but we’re the corner lot on a cul-de-sac; every time the wind blows, we wind up with garbage from everyone else’s yard — and, of course, weed seeds from their lawn clippings. So, we discarded the idea because we would never be able to keep up with the weeding. :-/

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 111. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:02 pm

        Yes, I have a small ranch up here at the foot of Mt. Shasta. I used to raise a lot more animals and such than I do know, but time moves on, and things get lots heavier as we age.

        Reply
      • 112. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:10 pm

        @Kate

        I do wish for an edit button so “all y’all” wouldn’t have to see my mistakes …. I meant “now” not “know.”

        Reply
      • 113. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:16 pm

        Kate, I understood what you meant. If it’s any consolation, half my posts have a typo or a bad cut and paste edit that results in strange constructions. I’ve stopped commenting on them unless the mistakes make my comment incomprehensible. :)

        Reply
    • 114. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:32 pm

      Where do you live, Kate. I’m in Concord.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
      • 115. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm

        Near Mt. Shasta, on the Oregon border. Come on up!

        Reply
    • 116. Mandy  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:08 pm

      where in northern cali? I am probably too far away but I have some crunchy and equality minded friends who would love to have it (if that is okay with you)

      Reply
      • 117. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:18 pm

        Near Mt. Shasta, on the Oregon border.

        What are “crunchy friends” ????

        Reply
      • 118. Ann S.  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:23 pm

        I would use “crunchy” to mean friends who are hippie, earth-mother types, who probably eat granola (hence the “crunchy”).

        Reply
      • 119. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm

        That was my thought, too.

        Reply
      • 120. Mandy  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, ugh this heat is not helping me do anything but just lay in the ac and drink water. Of course pregnancy and heat doesn’t mix either.

        Ann is correct crunchy tends to be hippie type very into organic foods.

        We have a mommy board of like minded mommies and I have been keeping them updated on the status of the prop 8 trial. They are very much into equality!!!

        Thanks!

        Reply
      • 121. Ann S.  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        I was out last night at one of my knitting groups, and one of the other women wanted to talk about Prop 8, because her 13-yr-old son is quite adamantly for equality! She says that in the fall of 2008 they visited the Sacramento area, and he was really angry at all the Yes on 8 signs. They couldn’t wait to get out of there.

        There’s hope — equality is coming.

        Reply
    • 122. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:35 am

      What part of NorCal are you from, Kate? I’d love some! I live in Placerville, about 40 miles east of Sacramento.

      Reply
  • 123. Cat  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    There seem to be many similarities to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trail, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones took way more time to look at the evidence than the defendants wanted. The reactions to that ruling are very similar to what we see in the Perry case.

    Reply
    • 124. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm

      Not surprisingly, perhaps, Meese is affiliated (as an adjunct senior fellow) with the creationist Discovery Institute, which had its hands all over the Dover case.

      Reply
      • 125. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Not surprising at all. It’s all part of the same battle.

        Reply
  • 126. Dee  |  August 24, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I thought this article would be appreciated here:

    My Problem with Christianism –> time.com

    Reply
    • 127. PamC  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm

      I appreciated it! But I’ve seen “Christianism” & “Christianist” for over a year now, and their use is probably older than that. It’s a good way of differentiating between personal spirituality and a politicized ideology. I also see it as the difference between following a “way” instead of idolizing a religion.

      Reply
    • 128. Dave T  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:29 am

      I read through that & thought it sounded familiar. Then I looked at the byline: Andrew Sullivan.

      I read three blogs regularly: this one, Dan Savage’s, and Andrew Sullivan. I like Andrew Sullivan’s because, although I am an atheist, his christianity (and catholicism) are clear and forceful and unafraid. I don’t understand his spirituality in the way he does, but I admire the way it informs his criticism.

      Reply
      • 129. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 11:32 am

        I also read Sullivan regularly, even tho I often disagree with him, and sometimes I really disagree with him. In a way I can appreciate why his faith is so important to him, but most of the time, I marvel that he hasn’t moved on to a denomination that treats LGBT people with respect. The Anglican/Episcopalian church is just one step removed from Catholicism, yet avoids its most warped doctrines.

        Reply
    • 130. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 11:24 am

      I first read this some time ago, and continue to believe the distinction between Christian and Christianist is useful, probably more so because of the important parallel distinction between Islamic and Islamist.

      Reply
  • 131. Ann S.  |  August 24, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    OT, but you all might find this interesting. It’s about a Presbyterian minister who is on trial within her church for performing marriages for same-sex couples. The church has its own constitution and “laws”: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-presbyterian-trial-20100824,0,7488491.story

    Reply
    • 132. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:43 pm

      Following your lead, Ann S….

      http://roomforall.com/uploads/docs/roomforal_pamphletOct06.pdf

      The Reformed Church in America, a middle of the road Protestant church (of which my dad was a minister) is rather unfortunately anti-gay in many respects. A few years ago, they fired and de-frocked Norm Kansfield, the then president of their seminary, for performing a private wedding ceremony for his daughter and her wife. This is one of the positive things that emerged from that rather horrendous situation.

      Reply
    • 133. Bob  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm

      I love this story, like bringing a little bit of law and gov’t into the church, this will be the next level of enlightenment, and pretty much sums up where a lot of churches presently find themselves in Canada.

      There’s always a forward thinking person willing to push the envelope, and challenge old ways of doing things, most people are so set in there ways they have no idea the church has set it’s own rules often against doctirine, to keep away those they don’t like,

      We have to take the fight right into these churches, (not the royal we, but thos of us we’s who were taught those lies, now search the scripture for the real truth)

      My mother still can’t figure out why I have a thing against the church, what is my reason for turning on the church, even though I keep telling her, that’s part of my challenge in life, to confront the discrimination where I find it, many people are doing this and have been long before I was even aware it was possible.

      I do think at some point we will see a law suit filed against a church for teaching lies, and misleading people.

      Reply
  • 134. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    For Kirille: From Russia In Love

    http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=4&item=1410

    Reply
    • 135. PamC  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:24 pm

      That’s awesome! Egale is a wonderful website; my spouse & I frequently browsed there when dreaming of moving to Canada (the day after W was re-elected) (she also rear-ended a truck w/ Texas plates that day, but that was completely unrelated).

      Reply
    • 136. PamC  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm

      In any event, let’s hope this is a wind that blows in the right direction for our lovebirds!

      Reply
    • 137. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:29 pm

      That’s too funny about rear-ending a truck w/Texas plates. All I did was cry.

      Reply
    • 138. Ray in MA  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:53 pm

      A Beautiful Couple! My heart goes out to them… compared to here in the US, it seems they are starting at Step -10. (not Step 1) I hope their efforts help humanity.

      Reply
    • 139. Straight Grandmother  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:17 am

      Very nice and very inspiring. Lovely women.

      Reply
  • 140. RebeccaRGB  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    “Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof)”

    OMG, I think I actually *understand* why they said “we don’t need any evidence” now! They really meant “we don’t need any evidence to show that only a sperm and an egg can produce an embryo; it’s obvious.” …

    Pick your own ending to this post:
    a) Or am I giving them too much credit?
    b) Of course, their “logic” connecting this to marriage had already been shown to be on shaky ground (to put it nicely), so this didn’t give us anything new.
    c) On the other hand, what about that study that showed it was possible to take the DNA from one egg and inject it into another egg to produce an embryo (or whatever it was exactly)? Oooh, I think I just crushed their argument. Yay for lesbians!

    Reply
    • 141. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:48 pm

      Only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring?

      So that means that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God?

      In fact, Jesus must have been a tree… because as we all know, only God can make a tree.

      Reply
      • 142. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:55 pm

        oh!!!! I haven’t had this great of a laugh for ages!!!!

        Reply
    • 143. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 7:54 pm

      yeah ….. and I bet they can’t even spell “parthnogenesis.”

      Reply
      • 144. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm

        I have read this word so many times, and even know what “parthenogenesis” means, and the only time I can spell it is when I have a dictionary or a biology text in front of me. Ouch!

        But I bet none of them can spell “Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious” without looking at the songbook from Mary Poppins.

        Reply
      • 145. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:03 pm

        Probably can’t spell floccinaucinihilipilification either.

        :)

        Reply
      • 146. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm

        You got me on that one, Anonygrl. Now, can you explain what that one means?

        Reply
      • 147. draNgNon  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:11 am

        and neither can you.

        “parthenogenesis”

        Reply
      • 148. anonygrl  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:57 pm

        floc·ci·nau·ci·ni·hil·i·pil·i·fi·ca·tion   [flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn]
        –noun
        Rare . the estimation of something as valueless (encountered mainly as an example of one of the longest words in the English language).

        Reply
    • 149. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:07 pm

      d) and that’s why the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, that makes about as much sense as their logic.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 150. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Neither, my dear, dear, Kate, can you.

    parthenogenesis

    But I love that you tried!!!!

    :)

    Reply
    • 151. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm

      And I hope you know I was giggling with delight through all of that, so please don’t take it as an insult in any way!

      Reply
      • 152. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        I guess I should have put a sarcasm alert with it … Not so funny when it was unclear I was spelling how I figured they would!!!

        Reply
      • 153. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:09 pm

        OH! OK… the fact that I DIDN’T get it makes it even funnier, really!

        Well done!!!

        Reply
      • 154. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:11 pm

        I love you, Anonygrl!!!

        Reply
      • 155. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:12 pm

        It is mutual, Kate!!!

        Reply
      • 156. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:17 pm

        I hope you’ll join Fiona and me as we skip.

        Reply
      • 157. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm

        Skip happily down the road? Or skip town?

        OK… either way, I am in.

        Reply
      • 158. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm

        By the way, I live on the other side of the country, but I want your eggs! :)

        Reply
      • 159. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:30 pm

        Watch out. I already called dibbs on anonygirl.

        Reply
      • 160. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:33 pm

        Sorry about the undefined reference, Anonygrl; you may have missed the troll in one of the other posts who posted that Fiona and I would be soon skipping our way to hell, hand in hand. To which Straight Grandmother responded by keyboard-singing “Skip to My Lou.”

        Reply
      • 161. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:39 pm

        Girls, girls! There is plenty of me to go around! And I am a very sharing person! :)

        Yes, we will all go skipping, arm in arm, down the yellow brick road… and if we get to the Emerald City first, terrific! I have red hair and look GREAT in green. And if we get to hell first, whoopie! We are a force of nature, and inside a month we will have them sorted out too, and we will all sit around toasting marshmallows with all of the other wonderful people from history who various churches were assured were going there before we got there. Frankly, if Jesus were alive today, the fundamentalists would probably send HIM there too!

        Reply
    • 162. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:34 pm

      Dibbs, schmibbs; Kathleen. She wants my EGGS! (No one has ever said that to me before )

      Reply
      • 163. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:36 pm

        Well, I clearly can’t complete. :)

        Reply
      • 164. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:40 pm

        Awwww…… I love ALL of you!!!

        Reply
      • 165. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        I must admit, that WAS pretty hot!! ;-)

        Reply
  • 166. Lora  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    My parents, particularly my mother, have been an ardent follower of “Dr.” Dobson and Focus on the Family for years. It turns my stomach every time I think of it.

    Thanks for posting this…

    Reply
    • 167. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:12 pm

      That is a rough one, Lora. My sympathies.

      Reply
    • 168. Carpool Cookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm

      Oh gosh, Lora….yeah, Dobson’s a bitter pill.

      Have you seen the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So? He figures in it in a major way…which is ultimately devastating.

      Do not watch that movie alone!

      Reply
      • 169. Lora  |  August 24, 2010 at 11:43 pm

        I have watched that movie. I own it, in fact, and have thought a time or two about sending it to my parents.
        Since they moved from California to Texas, they seem to have gone even farther to the right…if that’s possible! Yikes!
        The real kicker is that my sister moved there too…she’s also gay and has been with her partner for about 20 years or so, but since moving to Texas has gone very deep in the closet, not that she was out much before anyway. For the life of me, I can not understand why a gay person would choose to move there…I just don’t get it.

        Reply
      • 170. Ann S.  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:39 am

        Not a documentary, but I recommend the movie Saved, a humorous (but at times dramatic) look at life in and around a Christian high school.

        Here is one scene.

        Reply
      • 171. Alan E.  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:41 am

        “I am filled with Christ’s love!” *chucks Bible at another student*

        Reply
      • 172. Ann S.  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:48 am

        “This is not a weapon!”

        Reply
      • 173. Mandy  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:51 pm

        I loved the movie Saved. If I had to pick I would probably say that I am atheist but after watching Saved I must admit that it made me start to believe. Kind of like the movie Dogma. It definitely filled me with hope or faith way more then going to church ever would.

        Reply
      • 174. JonT  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        “Saved” is a great movie, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

        The ‘ambulance’ scene is one I still laugh at. You’ll know it when you see it :)

        I have “For the Bible Tells Me So” sitting right here on my table, fresh from Netflix.

        Looking ‘forward’ to it.

        Reply
  • 175. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Channelling the procreative urge into marriage, so that the state will not have the burden of caring for unwanted children is, I will admit, a fine and noble thing. I do not argue with that in the least, and I commend people for trying to support the ideal of families caring for their children.

    I’ve yet to see one bit of evidence, testimony, explanation, or anything that shows any relationship between this idea and the idea that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

    Allowing same sex couples to marry in no way discourages opposite sex couples to do so. No one has ever presented anything by way of evidence to suggest it does. Nor does it in any way channel the procreative urge in any different directions.

    Unless, perhaps, the Prop 8 proponents are trying to suggest that if same sex couples are not allowed to marry each other, they will then decide to marry someone of the opposite sex and become a breeder???

    Someone tell me I am reading that wrong, that I have missed a turn somewhere, please?

    Reply
    • 176. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      Anonygrl, I would tell you that you are reading it wrong, except for one small little detail. You are reading it exactly the way the anti-equality folks see it. You see, as we all well know, they think that our sexual orientation is a “choice,” and since it is a “choice,” if we are not allowed to marry the person of our heart’s desire because that person is of the same gender, they think we will then choose to marry someone of the opposite gender and begin to breed. Of course, using their logic, even if I were straight, I would still not be allowed to marry, because I am infertile. So no, you have not missed a turn anywhere, but the folks who wrote that argument would not even qualify to ride the short bus to school.

      Reply
      • 177. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:24 pm

        Richard, you are always making me laugh. I love that, ride the short bus to school.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
    • 178. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 5:19 am

      There has always been a complete, total logical disconnect between promoting/protecting traditional marriages and families, and denying marriage to same sex couples. Zero cause and effect.

      Unless the objective is to ‘keep out the riffraff” who will demean the institution, whatever that means.

      Reply
      • 179. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 7:58 am

        @Sagesse: If they really wanted to keep out the riffraff, they should never have let Britney Spears get married.

        Reply
      • 180. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

        Somehow, I think the “riffraff” who will demean the institution of marriage are already members of that institution.

        Reply
      • 181. draNgNon  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

        I can see how riff raff would demean the institution of marriage. I mean, incest and all…

        Reply
      • 182. draNgNon  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:22 am

        awwww, it culled my link to rockymusic.org

        Reply
      • 183. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

        @Richard and Sheryl

        Admittedly, I was using their definition of ‘riffraff’. What was I saying about cause and effect? Oh yeah, none.

        Maybe someone could draw a Venn diagram.

        Reply
    • 184. Carol  |  August 25, 2010 at 9:15 am

      Why do we have the terms “baby mama” and “baby daddy” to refer to the relationship between unmarried parents, as in “Bristol is Levi’s baby mama” and “John is Rielle’s baby daddy”? Because procreating without marriage is so common that we need shorthand terms so we can more easily talk about it.

      Reply
    • 185. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm

      Anonygrl, I have heard that argument before. It usually goes something like this:
      “Gay people have the right to marry! Of course they do! They are completely free to marry the opposite sex! They just CHOOSE not to, and that isn’t our fault! They are denying THEMSELVES!”

      It makes me want to barf, in all honesty.

      Reply
  • 186. Bob  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    I don’t care about spelling mistakes, but this whole post, just gets me so upset, I can’t imagine the mess, and the ignorance of the religious right, and there ability to drag this on for so long,

    All thse issues now taking up court time, initiallly I was cheering cause we never really confronted the religious right in that way, but somehow I’m glad we left that for another day, wow, maybe Canadians are a little brighter than I thought.

    Least my mother and her church aren’t stopping me from enjoying married life,

    I say come to Canada Krill, for that Russian wedding,

    Oh and I heard people talking about chickens, well I had some in my back yard, loved em, fresh eggs, but they attracted rats, so no more chickens, but everyone on the island where I live are the granola type , raise their own food, and stuff.

    We have a large contingent of draft dogers from the states, at our recent local live Rocky Horror Picture Show, my friend was pointing them all out to me, it touched my heart when he showed me a mother, who came with her husband so her sons wouldn’t have to go to war. happy here, living there sense of freedom, and we are very close to Oregon, just across the pond from Seattle.

    I think most people up here are anti establishment, to such an extent they often create new problems, but the LGBT commuinity nestles right in comfortably, and quite active in positions of influence in the community.

    I say yes to chickens goats, donkeys, and for sure gay weddings, two women friends recently had their relatives, also two women come over from Ireland, we assume they were wealthy, cause they brought over their own Rabbi and a priest, and the wedding was the talk of the town,

    wow that was a whole lot about nothing, cept I like the stories about the churches being challenged by the sheeple.

    Reply
    • 187. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      There is absolutely no reason why an Irish person should not be Jewish, but for some reason, the idea of an Irish Rabbi is tickling me right now.

      Reply
      • 188. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm

        Anonygrl: BZ just informed me that Mayor Glasgow of Dublin is Jewish, and that hearing Hebrew spoken with an Irish brogue is rather amusing–sort of like a leprechaun with a lisp.
        He said that the Prods and the Catholics could not get along, so they made a Jew the mayor.

        Reply
      • 189. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:47 pm

        That is an amazingly fabulous solution! I love it! And I want to go there just to hear Hebrew with a brogue now!!!

        I am dancing around my apartment in glee right now… you all are so very much entertaining me tonight! Thanks everyone!!!

        Reply
      • 190. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:51 pm

        We try!

        Reply
      • 191. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:18 pm

        AndrewPDX–some Mexican Coca-Cola! Also known as Passover Coca-Cola!

        Reply
      • 192. Alan E.  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:02 pm

        Mexican Cola is so amazingly good! Real sugar > HFCS any day.

        Reply
      • 193. Joel  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:07 pm

        Reminds me of a joke about a Jewish man from Brooklyn visiting Japan and finding a synagogue there. He watches the Saturday morning service, which impresses him greatly. So he searches out the Rabbi, a short Japanese man, to compliment him.

        “So, you are Jewish?” asks the Rabbi
        “Yes, of course. I belong to Temple Beth Sharon in Brooklyn” replies the man in a thick New York Jewish accent.

        The rabbi looks him up and down for several seconds and says “Funny, you don’t ROOK Jewish!”

        Reply
      • 194. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm

        Since my rabbi is asleep, I am printing this one off, Joel, so that I can show it to him when he wakes up. He will end up ROFL!

        Reply
      • 195. Joel  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:30 am

        @Richard:
        That’s one of my favorites, and I do a kick ass Japanese accent! I don’t think I have ever heard a Jewish joke I don’t like, even the ones that paint us as sly or crafty. Jews ARE sly and crafty; we have to be, to get around all the petty regulations that govern our lives! As Shirley MacClaine once said, when asked if the jokes about her paranormal experiences offended her, “Not if they’re funny!” No wonder that the comedy of this country has been fueled by Jewish artists for more than a century.

        Reply
      • 196. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 7:47 am

        And you know we have been crafty for more time than we will mention. After all, we invented the legal profession. Anyone who needs proof, I refer to the book of Leviticus.

        Reply
    • 197. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:26 pm

      You live in Victoria, Bob?

      Reply
      • 198. Dave T  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

        I’m guessing one of the Gulf Islands (probably Saltspring, just ‘cuz it’s the largest).

        Dave
        (former resident of northern Vancouver Island, now in sunny southern California :-)

        Reply
      • 199. Bob  |  August 25, 2010 at 9:55 am

        Dave is right, Salt Spring Island, how long have you been in Dalifornia Dave, are you American or Canadian? I would always love to move to San Fran, since I spent my youth there, or more properly I sould say mis spent, anyway I did leave my heart there.

        We have a number of Californians living on Salt Spring, last winter a group of vulunteers started our first radio show.

        Reply
      • 200. Dave T  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:41 pm

        Actually, both. Born in the US, moved to Canada (the Comox Valley, specifically) when I was very young (& became a citizen). I moved back to California for school & I’ve been here in California almost 10 years now. I’ll be staying because this is where I’ve put down roots with my wife & son :-)

        I’m very proud of my Canadian heritage (and Canada’s progress on social justice issues like SSM) and I’m very happy that my son has citizenship of both countries. I hope that I can give him plenty of opportunities to explore that part of his life as he grows up.

        Reply
  • 201. Brad  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    Ht,

    We’re a MM married couple residing in Arizona & excited about the iniitial Rulling (my husband comes from Redding, & we married in MA)

    Still, we hope that gays & lesbians don’t throw the baby out /w the bathwater: it:s very easy to believe in Jesus Christ and not even be a Christion. Our wedding was religioud & civil.

    Can’t wait for “activist judges” to affirm our constItutional right to marry freely within all 50 states.

    Brad

    Reply
    • 202. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      Good for you!! Congratulations!

      And you are right, it is a situation to be careful of, the whole idea of religion. There are so many religionists on our side, it does not do to dismiss it out of hand.

      And I hope for that right too, and soon, Brad.

      Reply
      • 203. Carpool Cookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:52 pm

        I go back and forth with the religious business….on a few boards I’m a bit fiestier about being agnostic, but really, Who Cares? I don’t have a problem with freedom of religion, if some of the faithful would just turn down the flame and realize (duh!) that freedom of religion requires freedom from other people’s religion. (I’ve posted that a few times here….the phrase is not out of my system yet.)

        I think for some people, religion is a familiar, comforting, very generalized thing that even if they don’t live by, might be a pleasant remnant of their childhood. For instance, even though I’m agnostic, I’d probably opt to be married in my childhood church. (Well, actually a garden wedding, with a Unitarian minister.)

        It amuses me that the Christianists see homosexuals and their friends as somehow plotting to overthrow religion, world-wide. Who’s got the time?

        Reply
      • 204. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 7:36 am

        Exactly, Carpool Cookie. Who has the time to overthrow religion world-wide? When are we suppoed to do it, anyway? Before the first load of laundry, or while cooking dinner?

        Reply
    • 205. Mark M  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:47 pm

      That’s wonderful Brad! We are very happy for you two.
      I/we agree completely with you too. We had a religious ceremony ourselves :-)

      Reply
  • 206. Bob  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    oops, sorry for being overly chatty, twice on the same subject, better shut up, apologies

    Reply
    • 207. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:34 pm

      Can’t speak for anyone else, but I love the chat on this blog. :)

      Reply
      • 208. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:45 pm

        Here here!!

        Reply
      • 209. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:46 pm

        Same here! This is just how I always hoped a family reunion would be. And the best part is, I don’t have to wait a year in between visits!

        Reply
      • 210. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:47 pm

        And it’s a family reunion that we actually WANT to attend!

        Reply
      • 211. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:50 pm

        And we don’t even have to worry about getting attacked by fire ants or mosquitos! How cool is that?

        Reply
      • 212. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:50 pm

        OK… someone here needs to win a BIG lottery… I mean a HUGE one… and send all the rest of us tickets to meet up with them somewhere good for a week, don’t you think?

        Reply
      • 213. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:56 pm

        I vote for all gathering at Kate’s place. I’d gladly help with chores in exchange for fresh eggs and honey… and, of course, the great company!

        Reply
      • 214. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:56 pm

        I suggest Connecticut! Hey, PamC, what’s the closest five-star hotel to you?

        Reply
      • 215. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:58 pm

        I can deal with that, Kathleen. I will even bring my baking book and my sheet pans for the challah.

        Reply
      • 216. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:01 pm

        Hurray! There’s definitely plenty of room for everyone here, and 42 acres for tents!!!! ESPECIALLY if Richards makes challah, which uses lots of eggs, right???? (Are eggs kosher?)

        Reply
      • 217. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:03 pm

        Yes, eggs are kosher. They are considered pareve, which means they are neither meat nor dairy.

        Reply
      • 218. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:05 pm

        Wait, wait… there is HONEY too? Kate, you may just be pulling ahead here…

        Although if I come, I will happily share a tent with Kathleen.

        Reply
      • 219. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:06 pm

        And I will need some of that honey to blend into the butter for the challahs.

        Reply
      • 220. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:08 pm

        Yep, Anonygrl, honey and lots of organic veggies and other goodies. And despite all this, you’ve chosen Kathleen for your tent?? Oh well. I can cope.

        Reply
      • 221. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:08 pm

        If anyone has a cow, and we can get fresh milk and cream… then make butter…. and mix honey in it… and bake challah…

        Kate, how do you feel about us never LEAVING?

        Reply
      • 222. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm

        It’s yours, Richard! There’s nothing I like better than someone who bakes.

        Reply
      • 223. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm

        Kate, I assume you will sleep in the house, not a tent… although I do confess, as a city girl, a tent is not my IDEAL housing… I prefer a four star hotel… so how about, late at night, when everyone else has bedded down, Kathleen and I sneak into the house?

        Reply
      • 224. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:13 pm

        Butter it is! And I’ve made lots of cheese in my time, too. (Richard will need to fill me in on making sure it’s kosher.) What a great time we’ll all have — “let them eat challah!”

        Reply
      • 225. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:14 pm

        This is starting to sound like the BEST COMMUNE EVER!!

        Reply
      • 226. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:14 pm

        Yep, lots of room in the house, too. We’ll all just be one happy family. Not sure I can promise 4 star lodging, though….

        Reply
      • 227. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:16 pm

        As long as you can promise indoor plumbing, I am ok with it!

        Reply
      • 228. AndrewPDX  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:16 pm

        Hm…. I can prolly hitchhike down from Portland for the party… I wonder what I could bring to go with Richard’s cooking. . . .

        :)

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 229. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:17 pm

        Good thing I have a rabbi in the house. He can definitely help you learn about what is required for kosher even better than I can.

        Reply
      • 230. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm

        Yep, indoor plumbing and running water (in pipes…). Also a couple of travel trailers for sleeping. And a second house on the ranch that I rent out, from which I’ll kick out my tenants for a while so that we can take it over.

        Oooh, Andrew, another cook! Get yourself out there onto I-5 and come on down!

        Reply
      • 231. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm

        Bring some Dungeness crab or Pacific salmon, Andrew. I grill a mean salmon…

        Reply
      • 232. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:21 pm

        Definitely we need your in-house Rabbi, Richard — he can also perform all those Siskiyou County courthouse weddings. That will make the news splash even better!

        Reply
      • 233. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:21 pm

        Sounds perfect, Kate!

        And on that happy note, you decide amongst yourselves who is going to go out tomorrow and buy a winning lottery ticket, I have to go to bed because I must get up in seven hours and go to work. Ew.

        Goodnight all you wonderful crazy people!

        Hugs and kisses all around!

        Reply
      • 234. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:24 pm

        @ Kate: I know one wedding he would not be able to perform–ours. Kind of hard to officiate at the wedding and be one of the grooms at the same time. But there is another rabbi I can probably talk into coming along with us. That way we can do twice as many weddings!

        Reply
      • 235. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:25 pm

        I’m off to nod as well ….. I’m past my bedtime already (rancher’s hours, ya’ know), but this was just WAY too much fun to miss!!!!

        Reply
      • 236. Kathleen  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:26 pm

        I’m well known for my crepes – both savory and dessert. The fresh honey would be a nice touch.

        Reply
      • 237. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        Crepes — my favorite! All these cooks around; what more could I want?

        Nite’all; I’m off to dream of crepes and honey.

        Reply
      • 238. Carpool Cookie  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:56 pm

        I’ve got Martha Stewart popover tins!

        (Then you whip softened butter and strawberry jam together in equal parts to spread on them.)

        Reply
      • 239. Ann S.  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:13 am

        Man, I go out for one little evening and miss all the commune-planning. I am so there, though. I promise to help with chores and to join in the skipping. I don’t even mind sleeping in a tent. As long as I can bring my knitting.

        Reply
      • 240. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 10:20 am

        @ Ann S.: Don’t stop at bringing your knitting. Bring your whole family! After all, that will just mean even more good times. And let’s not forget the beautiful orchids!

        Reply
    • 241. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm

      OH!!!! And think of all the marriages we could have at the Siskiyou County courthouse! Talk about making a huge splash in the national news……. And then maybe the Courage Campaign would offer their fabulous rainbow bear shirts with this county’s name on them. (Without the enclave of lefty voters in the south county, we would have put Imperial County’s record to shame…… and may have anyway. I’ll have to check.)

      Reply
      • 242. fiona64  |  August 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

        I am sure that if I did through my files, I can find my ordination certificate … which allows me to perform legally binding weddings in the state of CA.

        Love,
        Fiona (who really does wish we could have just such a giant party …)

        Reply
  • 243. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    So… an Irelander, a Lesbian and a Rabbi walk into a bar and order a drink.

    And the bartender pours her one.

    Ok.. it needs work.

    Lots of work.

    Reply
    • 244. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      It doesn’t need a bit of work — it’s perfect!!!!

      Reply
      • 245. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm

        Are you just saying that to butter me up so I will choose you over Kathleen?

        :P

        Reply
      • 246. Kate  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:46 pm

        Ah, I hadn’t considered that, but if it will work……….

        Reply
      • 247. anonygrl  |  August 24, 2010 at 8:48 pm

        LOL.

        Nope. I still choose….

        ALL of you!!!

        (which works out so nicely for ME, you see!!)

        Reply
    • 248. Joel  |  August 24, 2010 at 10:10 pm

      A priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a bar and the bartender says “What is this, some kind of joke?”

      Reply
    • 249. Jen-Bunny  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      ahahaha I love it. You guys are awesome. I’m about 16 hours too late to the party but I’m loving reading it!!!

      Reply
  • 250. BK  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:12 am

    “Yet Walker’s opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist.” -Citizenlink

    “…voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8…”

    *voluminous evidence*

    ROFL!!! Hahahahaha!! Somebody else probably caught this, but I couldn’t help myself! Gahahahaha so hilarious!

    Reply
    • 251. BK  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:13 am

      Oops. The last two lines shouldn’t have been bolded… Sorry. :)

      Reply
  • 252. Straight Grandmother  |  August 25, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Good Morning everyone. I missed a fun virtual party here yesterday just wanted to let you know it was a fun good read for me this morning. Now I am off to paint one of our bathrooms but no thanks to Kate I will now be humming Lou Lou Skip to my Lou all day. Isn’t there a verse in that song that says, “I’ll get another one prettier than you, I’l get another one prettier than you?”

    To bad I am so far away Kate, I would have taken thoes eggs in a minute. My hsuband and I ahve thought a lot about getting chickens but me too I am worried about rats. I know there are rats around here as our cat has caught 2 of them. Thankfully with the cat (which I am really not fond of the cat actually, he came with the house) he keeps our home rodent free.

    Reply
    • 253. Bob  |  August 25, 2010 at 11:51 am

      @Striaght Grandmother, you are so right, chickens bring rats, no matter what, I tried everything I could, starting with denial, saying they were mice, and I tried setting mouse traps, somehow mice seemed more acceptable, you know cuter and easier to control, like being bi instead of actually GAY, but when my friend looked at the droppings she said sorry Bob those are rats, ugghhh, everything I read said only way to get rid of them is to get rid of the source of food, by know they had become real brave and would just eat right out of the chiken feeder when the chooks were up on the roost at night,
      So I gave my three gorgeous hens, who were great layers, we quite fequently had double yolks, nice dark yellow, I gave them to my friends Carmen and Rodney Spring, who live on Rainbow road (how gay is that), cause they love chickens and have more acreage,

      Just a side note about chickens, or should I say rats, Alberta is known as a rat freee Province, and is famous for it’s rat patrol, any siting of a rat is quickly traced , they actually have no rats. weird eh.

      And some of our major cities like Victoria, have agreeed to allow back yard chickens,.

      I don’t know about you guys but that’s what happened here in Canada, first it was gay marriages, then they passed the ordinance allowing chickens in back yards, who know’s where we’ll go from here, but right now it’s fun.

      Reply
  • 254. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Reference, please.

    Can someone point me to Judge Walker’s Order Denying Summary Judgment, where he rejects Baker v Nelson as precedent? I only started following this case during the trial, and have never reviewed the pre-trial back and forth.

    Thanks.

    Reply
    • 255. Kathleen  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:17 am

      It was dealt with in a hearing on October 14. Transcript here:
      http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/2009-10-14-hearing-transcript/

      It’s informative to read the entire transcript, but the part where Walker makes his decision starts at the bottom of page 72. Baker is discussed in various places, but the part of the hearing where Walker makes his pronouncement on Baker is pg 75, line 19 through 79, line 4.

      Reply
      • 256. Kate  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

        Great typo in that transcript: “home sexuality.” Too funny.

        Reply
      • 257. Kathleen  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:36 am

        Reading on, Baker comes up again on page 90.

        Reply
      • 258. Kate  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:37 am

        And Walker zings the DIs again:

        THE COURT: Well, far be it from me to prevent you
        from waiving a right to file a reply brief.

        Reply
      • 259. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 11:13 am

        Thanks Kathleen. I knew I could count on you. Yup, Judge Walker pretty much demolished that precedent.

        Reply
  • 260. Linda  |  August 25, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Damn! You guys had a party last night and I missed it! Oh well….I was on the phone with my girly…:)

    This made for great reading this morning; thanks!

    Reply
    • 261. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

      In that case, you actually got to have two parties. I know what it is like to be on the phone with the one you love. Talk for hours and it feels like you have only been talking for five minutes.

      Reply
  • 262. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Another one bites the dust. Fla. AG defeated in Republican primary for governor.

    McCollum Loses Fla. Primary

    “McCollum faced intense scrutiny by both media outlets and his gubernatorial primary opponent for hiring Dr. George Rekers, a former board member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, in a 2008 case defending the state’s ban on adoption for same-sex couples.”

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/24/McCollum_Loses_Fla__Primary/

    Reply
    • 263. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:31 am

      I do believe this calls for a musical salute, don’t you?

      Enjoy. Brief commercial, then the video.

      Reply
      • 264. Sagesse  |  August 25, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        I have an iPod playlist called Edgy. Queen, Springsteen, the Sopranos soundtrack….

        Reply
    • 265. Kathleen  |  August 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

      Sadly, the guy who won the Repub nomination isn’t any better, but I’m at least glad to see McCollum’s record brought him down.

      Reply
  • 266. adam  |  August 25, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Wait, really? Someone still listens to Ed Meese?

    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)

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