BREAKING: California Supreme Court rejects PJI appeal; Schwarzenegger and Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8

September 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm 142 comments

By Eden James

Breaking from the San Francisco Chronicle:

“The state Supreme Court refused to come to the aid of California’s embattled ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, denying a conservative group’s request to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the voter-approved measure.

The state officials’ decision not to argue in support of Proposition 8 has raised questions about whether anyone is legally qualified to defend it in court. The Pacific Justice Institute filed suit last week, arguing that the California Constitution requires Brown to defend the state’s laws.

A state appeals court dismissed the suit without a hearing, and the state’s high court denied review Wednesday without comment.


“Attorneys general are not potted plants in the litigation process,” lawyers for Brown told the court. Although the attorney general is required to represent the state, they said, Brown also took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and is not obliged to defend a law he considers unconstitutional.

Read more:

Entry filed under: Right-wing, Trial analysis.

It’s not about the sex NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “A man who committed sodomy may have lost his soul, be he did not lose his gender”

142 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Dave in ME  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm


    • 2. BK  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:23 pm

      Haha same response from me. :)

      But on the other hand, wouldn’t it have been even better if they *were* forced to defend it? They wouldn’t be blamed for doing it, and the case could then actually make it further in the court system. After all, aren’t we confident that the Prop 8 ruling would be upheld?

      • 3. elliom  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm

        Hopefull, yes…confident…no.

        Any time you set foot in a court room an appear before a judge, it’s a crap shoot.

        There’re risks at every step, and gains for stopping at every step. For my part, I’ll be happy if, whereever this ends up, the final result is a net gain.

      • 4. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm

        If by “we” you mean all of us here, then, no. I am not confident. I’d rather not risk the victory we have on appeal.

        Not that it is up to us here, of course.

      • 5. Bolt  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:49 am

        Hi BK, while I can’t speak for everyone, but when and if this case is argued on it’s merits, we will win; furthermore, as Ted Boutrous of AMFER stated, “we never want to throw away a legal argument.” Olson and Boies know exactly what they’re doing, and their ultimate goal is success.

  • 6. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    But I am quite sure that instead of realizing that these judges were doing the job they were sworn to do, PJI will say that this is a case of “activist judges” conspiring to “overturn the will of the people.” Isn’t that what everyone who has hijacked the term “conservative” has cried when the rulings haven’t gone the way they thought they should go?

    • 7. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:56 pm

      According to the story:

      Sour grapes much????

      • 8. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm

        Oops, did paste the way I thought, here:
        Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the court order was disappointing.

        “People on the left and right should both be mourning the fact that the attorney general and the governor are reneging on their oaths of office,” Dacus said, arguing that the officials have a sworn duty to defend all state laws”

      • 9. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm

        @Tony: As I’m sure you know, this is more disinformation. What was at issue was whether there was a duty to appeal.

      • 10. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:16 pm

        I know, it didn’t come out right.

    • 11. Ed Cortes  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:50 pm

      Now I’M SO confused!! P-Ass-ific Just-us Instant-toot? What am I getting wrong??

  • 12. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Can I get a Woot, Woot??

    • 13. Anonygrl  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm

      Yes, indeed you can.

      Woot, Woot!!!

    • 14. Kathleen  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm


    • 15. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:45 pm

      …and an FTW! to boot!

    • 16. Ronnie  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:40 am


    • 17. Ozymandias71  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:42 am

      Woot, woot! :)



  • 18. Kevin S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Could they realistically have ruled any other way? If the law had been enacted by the regular California government and was defeated in the district court, would anybody claim they had to launch an appeal that was sure to fail?

  • 19. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    By the way, youngsters, the phrase “I am not a potted plant” was famously uttered many years ago by Brendan Sullivan.

    Sullivan received international media attention in his role as defense counsel to Iran-Contra affair figure Oliver North. During the ensuing congressional hearings, chairman Daniel Inouye suggested that North should speak for himself, because he had wearied of Sullivan’s constant objections to questions put to North. Sullivan responded, “Well, sir, I’m not a potted plant. I’m here as the lawyer. That’s my job.”

    • 20. Anonygrl  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm

      I KNEW there was some connection to lawyers and potted plants, I just couldn’t put it together!

      Thanks Ann, for being right there on the money!!!!


      • 21. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:37 pm

        The Iran-Contra hearings were rather riveting news back then. If there had been an internet, there might have been an Iran-Contra Hearing Trackers site.

  • 22. Heather Sheridan  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    I was 9 or 10 years old but remeber watching the hearings. Yes they were quite riveting. It seemed that was all the adults around me were talking about, and since I was good at being seen and not heard, I was privy to alot of the adult conversation, when I would be so quiet they would forget there was a child in the room. I must say that talent to blend into the woodwork led to me learning quite a bit about life before I was probably supposed to. LOL

    • 23. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm

      I remember hearing some of Oliver North’s testimony on the radio, then getting home and turning on the TV to watch some more — I got quite a different impression from seeing his testimony rather than just hearing it.

      • 24. draNgNon  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:32 pm

        a marine uniform will do that.

      • 25. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:21 am

        It was the way he wore that uniform. I don’t know if I can explain it well — the second I saw him, I thought “here’s a man who thinks that his uniform entitles him to do any damn thing he wants, legal or not, and claim it was his patriotic duty”.

      • 26. fiona64  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:04 am

        I worked for the Dept. of Defense, in a public affairs office, at the time of those hearings. Oliver North scared the crap out of me, for just the reasons you describe.

        Plus, there’s no way to argue with “I can’t recall.” How do you prove otherwise?

        Thus, one of my favorite Rolling Stone editorial cartoons of all time is burned into my memory. It was a drawing of a record on a turntable, and the label read “Good Golly, I’m Olly (Just Can’t Recall).”

        Fiona (who is recovering from a second dental procedure to correct complications that arose from the first one that took place yesterday)

      • 27. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:32 am

        @Fiona; I remember that cartoon as well. And here is a case of Pain-A-Lay to help you with the dental work, along with some chamomile tea and glycerin swabs to prevent drying out. And a nice quilt to wrap up in that holds all our love for you.

        ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


      • 28. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:46 am

        I hope you are feeling loads better.

        And Richard,
        If ever I am sick, I am calling YOU!

      • 29. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:51 am

        Fiona, I hope the second dental procedure went well, and no more will be needed!

  • 30. Sagesse  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Another fine victory for the not-potted-plants. All this could change when ‘the people’ legalize marijuana in CA…. but that’s another story :).

    • 31. anonygrl  |  September 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm

      Woot woot!

      • 32. Greg in OZ  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:01 pm

        woot woot! indeed!!

        Greg in Oz (soon to be in San Francisco!!)

      • 33. anonygrl  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:38 pm

        Woot woot for relocation, Greg!

      • 34. Greg in Oz (soon to be holidaying in San Francisco)  |  September 8, 2010 at 10:28 pm

        Oh no!

        It’s not a relocation – just a vacation (changed my sig to reflect that better :-)).

        You have NO IDEA how much I wish it WAS a relocation though!!!!!

        Any nice Californian boy who wants to propose to me though while I’m there would be nice – all offers considered!!!

        By the time we got hitched, hopefully all these laws would be passed on it’d be legal!!!!


        Greg in Oz (soon to be holidaying in San Francisco)

      • 35. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:44 am

        So, Greg, when are you going to be in SF?

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      • 36. Greg in Oz (soon to be holidaying in San Francisco)  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:34 am

        @Sheryl, Mormon Mum

        From the 21st Sept till 5th October – and I am soooo looking forward to revisiting my favourite city by the bay!!!!

        Would love to catch up with anyone from the ‘family’ here – your all such a great bunch of folk and I feel like I know you all already :-)

        Greg in Oz

      • 37. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:51 am

        Ok, Woot Woot for temporary relocation, Greg.

    • 38. Josiah  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:47 pm

      Sagesse, have you seen the T-shirt that says “Legalize gay pot”?


  • 39. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I don’t know if someone already linked this in a prior post.

    File this one under: Well, Duh!

    Gay marriage causes no harm to traditional marriage, study finds

    While social conservatives depict same-sex marriage as a threat to married life as we know it, Iowa’s 18-month experience with the newly legalized institution has revealed striking similarities to traditional marriage and no discernible harm to it, according to research by

    Might be worth hanging onto for when someone needs to be hit over the head with a clue-by-four.

    • 40. Josiah  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:48 pm

      Yep. No harm, no foul.

      Except for the NOMbies… they’re pretty foul.

    • 42. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:06 am

      They’ll just say, “Well, that’s only IOWA. No single STATE can define what works for the WILL of the PEOPLE…I mean, for the WELLBEING of the people. We mean…uh…something something something…”

      • 43. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:02 am

        Perhaps they meant to say

        Same sex marriages in Iowa are stable and normal? Well, that is just because they don’t KNOW how wrong they are. Once we get an amendment passed making their marriages illegal again, they can get back to being alone and miserable, as they are supposed to be and God intended it.

      • 44. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:32 am

        Speaking of Iowa, guess who has joined the battle over the Iowa judges who ended marriage discrimination in Iowa? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And she is working to defeat the people who are trying to oust the judges. And why am I not surprised that Justice O’Connor is on our side? Could it be due to what she said in Lawrence?

      • 45. Kathleen  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:05 am

        Richard, I suspect Justice O’Connor’s objection has less to do with any particular issue than it does with her general view that judges should not be subject to political pressures. She has become a vocal supporter of reform in judicial elections ever since she left the Supreme Court.

      • 46. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:54 am

        Good for Justice O’Connor. There is definitely something wrong with our judicial election system. I’ve known it since Justice Bird was recalled.

      • 47. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:01 am

        True, Kathleen. But just like most of the women I have ever known, including the women here on P8TT, I applaud Justice O’Connor for making good use of her strength of character to work for the right thing, including reform in the way judges are seated. I have long admired her as a brilliant lady with a strong sense of fairness and the ferocity to stand up for it.

    • 48. Marlene  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:07 am

      Reality always tends to fly in the face of the hysteria from the reicht, but then the religious reicht always lives in a delusional state anyway, so reality doesn’t affect their perverted agenda!

  • 49. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    More linky love.

    Anti-LGBT Leaders Fail in Court Challenge of Hate Crimes Law

    I think these folks also went to the communications school that BS Brown and Maggie Gallagher attended.

    Yesterday, Judge Thomas Ludington of the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Eastern Michigan dismissed the case of three plaintiffs seeking to strike the criminal provisions of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    The court challenge by three anti-LGBT clergy from Michigan made the ridiculous claim that the hate crimes statute creates “a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior.” They claimed that this law – so important in protecting the rights of LGBT persons across the country – violated their First Amendment rights, their guarantee of Equal Protection, the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Their arguments mirrored the ones made urging Congress to defeat the legislation last year.

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sought the dismissal, claiming that the law does not violate the Constitution and further, that the plaintiffs do not have the right to bring such a suit regarding a theoretical harm, since none have yet been prosecuted under the act, nor is there any evidence they ever will be. The Judge agreed, dismissing the case on all counts.

    File this under: People who have suffered no actual harm whining to the courts and losing.

    • 50. anonygrl  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:41 pm

      So, what that boils down to is “they are sexual deviants, and we hate them, so let’s not pass a hate crimes prevention act”

      • 51. AndrewPDX  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:47 pm

        Well, or maybe “we want to push our religious interpretation into law that these icky sinners deserve what they get — all the while claiming to still want First Amendment Rights and tax-exemption for perpetrating discrimination.”

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

    • 52. AndrewPDX  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:45 pm

      File this under: People who have suffered no actual harm whining to the courts and losing

      Seems like that filing cabinet is gettin’ pretty full these days.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 53. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        You betcha!

      • 54. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:09 am

        “Seems like that filing cabinet is gettin’ pretty full these days.”

        I think it’s about to tip over.

      • 55. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:39 am

        Maybe we should contact a data storage service to come and gather up all of that detritus!

    • 56. elliom  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      Ok, all this talk of “deviant behavior,” and their endless discussions of what the gey do in their bedrooms, brought back a somewhat funny memory:

      Anyone remember the book “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)?” I remember my folks had a copy, and I used to sneak it off the bookshelf when I was, say, 13 or 14. The section on homosexuality always drew me. Back then, I was just curious to learn about my feelings, and what they ment. Now, I’m struck by the similarities between EYAWKAS’s antiquated and misinformed ideas, and teh H8rs.

      In retrospect, however, EYAWKAS is funny in a quirky, dated sort of way. Teh H8rs definately are not

      • 57. Josiah  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:25 pm

        The book of Everything You Always Wanted to Know… actually did a fair bit of harm, reinforcing negative stereotypes about gay and lesbian people (in particular suggesting that they could never form stable, happy relationships). But at least one good thing did come from that book: the (very loose!) film adaptation by Woody Allen.

        The movie has so many great sequences: there’s one with Allen as a medieval court jester trying to get into the queen’s chastity belt (“We’d better hurry up, ’cause soon it’ll be the Renaissance and we’ll all be painting.”); another with Gene Wilder falling in love with a sheep; and another with Allen as a nervous sperm about to go out on his “first mission”. Brilliant stuff!

        If you haven’t seen it, you must rent it immediately.

      • 58. Franck  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:43 pm

        Ack, I discovered some time ago that my mother red that book as soon as she learnt I was gay. No wonder she was so adamant about hiding my “preferences” for a while.

        – Franck P. Rabeson
        Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1175 days, as of today.

      • 59. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:44 am

        Masters and Johnson were even worse. “The Sensuous Man” was another big seller of the sexual revolution, and I vividly recall a section entlted “Fags Need Good Bone Structure, But You Don’t”. His “point” (if you can call it that) was that beauty was 100% of the game to gay men, that as soon as their beauty faded homosexuals tended to commit suicide, and so forth. It went downhill from there. I’ve had a few arguments with guys over the years who internalized that crap.

      • 60. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:28 am

        @ Dr. Brent Zenobia: The sad part of it is, that there are still those who internalize the “beauty is everything” hogwash even today. I have seen so many who look at BZ and me with disgust when we go anywhere, simply because we are older, and not the Mr. Universe pageant winning type. But all I can do is pity them, because at some point their looks will fade, as happens with all of us, and if they have only concentrated on shallow friendships and relationships based on looks, they will be so lonely. I guess it is the gay version of what girls go through with the beauty pageants and the models that don’t represent the real world.

    • 61. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:01 am

      goodness, wonder if the would want the law changed if they were targets of hate crimes. I don’t care why a hate crime is committed, it is a hate crime and should be tried as such. Sounds like they think it is perfectly to cause harm to others if they don’t believe as they do. But then that is nothing new.

      I am really learning the depth of ridicule that so many of you have known most of your lives.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      • 62. Marlene  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:17 am

        Sheryl, you should know about ridicule yourself, being a Mormon and the long history of oppression against your faith.

        But just like every other time an oppressed segment of the nation assumes they’ve “arrived” and become part of the mainstream, they *instantly* become the oppressor, and the Mormon misogynist royalty’s no exception.

      • 63. Tomato  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:14 am

        Sheryl, I am so glad you are here.

      • 64. Tomato  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:25 am

        Whoops, I hit “submit” too soon.

        Sheryl, one of the reasons I’m glad you are here is because I was becoming quite prejudiced against *all* Mormons due to the actions of the powerful within the LDS.

        You’ve opened my eyes, and made me realize that I was falling into the same hateful mindset of the very people who are vehemently against equality. (and here I thought I was such a nice person!)

        Thanks to you, I’ve taken a deep breath, cleared my head of it’s angry fog, and been able to focus on the people within the LDS who are the issue, rather than blanketing all members of the LDS with my anger.

        I’m very grateful to you.

      • 65. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm

        Boy do I need to review my posts before submitting. My excuse, I have a cat who thinks anytime I am at the computer he thinks it is his pillow.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      • 66. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm

        Thank you Marlene and Tomato for you thoughts.

        I don’t think that I have experienced that ridicule because of the generation I belong to and because of where I grew up (Idaho, Nevada, Utah) and then moving to Calif. in 1972. I have been told that I will go to hell because of my religion. But hey, to each their own opinion. Because we don’t worship the same way and believe the same way, and have another book as a companion and testament to the Bible, we are not considered Christians by most Christians. We also don’t use the cross as a symbol. We are more about the resurrection and preparing for the next life than the crucifixion. All that said, I cannot understand a people whose history includes persecution (and that includes having a law written making it legal to exterminate them) and being forced to move west to uninhibited (except by the natives) territory to be able to practice their religion, turning around and joining forces (or even helping create) a coalition whose sole purpose is to strip rights or prevent those rights from being given to a group of people who do not choose their sexual orientation. We choose our religion, we do not choose our sexual orientation. And, I personally believe that come the judgment day, how we lived our life in respect to how we treated our fellow man is way more important than who we spent our life with.

        Okay, off my soapbox.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    • 67. Bolt  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:57 am

      I would to express my disdain towards the xtianist bigot legal groups for their failed attempt to repeal the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Preventions Act.

      Fuck you!

    • 68. Bennett  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:40 am

      Actually we should indict them (not sure exactly what that means, I only have a law and order legal education, but you get the picture.). They are clamouring for equal protection? What for? Obviously for some hate crime they have or intend to commit. :)

      • 69. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:19 am

        That was exactly my line of thinking, Bennett, Just what were they planning on doing that now they can’t legally do?

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    • 70. Ozymandias71  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:04 am

      It just boggles my mind that people who claim to believe in Christ’s message of love, redemption and sacrifice would turn around and scream ‘You’re interfering with our rights to say hateful things about Gays and Lesbians!’

      I just don’t get it.



  • 71. Heather Sheridan  |  September 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Someone else who knows how to take screen shots better than me should probably also take one as I do not know if mine is saved correctly.

  • 72. V  |  September 8, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Wow, when are these right-wingers going to stop stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath? I’m glad that the courts found the way they did with this, that entire filing was nonsense in the first place. Why are they so scared of homosexuals? I don’t buy any of the reasons they like to tout to the media or on blogs. :p

    • 73. Marlene  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:21 am

      They aren’t afraid of homosexuals, per se, V… they’re afraid of a group oppressed for centuries suddenly becoming their *equals*!

      This is typical for straight, white, fundamentalist Protestant men who are under the perverted delusion that the world revolves around them and their members. Just the thought of a LGBT person, let alone a woman, or a person of color being equals under the law threatens their perverted delusions, and causes them to claim they’re being “oppressed” because they can’t be bigots anymore!

      • 74. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:23 am

        Right… these types need to feel superior. Since they really aren’t smarter, faster, better-looking, more-talented, etc, they feel the need to pull some other group down to their knees so that they can point and say “See? I’m the king od the hill!”

        But I wouldn’t say they fear us being equals per se… they fear that they won’t have another group of people to oppress.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 75. BrianT  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:47 am

        I don’t think that is why they are afraid. Their fear is not directly related to gay people being equal. It is much deeper and personal.

        If being ‘gay’ is not ‘bad’, then they will have to confront the next logical step which is that their belief that they are is not rational. And that any actions and beliefs that they hold are bigoted and hateful.

        No one -wants- to be bigotted and hateful.

        For some, this goes back to their relgion. Which makes it even worse for them. No one wants to belong to a relgion that is ‘bigotted’. It does not work in their minds and hearts.

        They need a socially justified reason for their past actions and beliefs that targetted gay people. They need it to be OK. Else, they may just be ‘bad’ people.

        This is why I think, that reaching out and showing Americans that gay people and families are normal and just like all other families is not enough. It will help convince many, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem.

        The heart of the problem is the next step, getting them to actually believe that being gay is not ‘bad’. “Normal” and “Just like everyone else” is not the same as “Not Bad”. Lots of ‘normal’ things that ‘everyone does’ are ‘bad’. It just to them, for most things people do that are ‘bad’, they feel some guilt or remorse. But this doesn’t work for being gay, if it is not a “choice” or something that can be “fixed”.

        For as long as being gay is ‘bad’, then when they do things to condemn/punish/”help” gays, it is ok. And everything they have done before is ok.

        If being gay is not bad.. that means THEY were being bad.. or worse wrong.. or worse their relgion is bad or wrong! And that simply cannot be! And therefore being gay is bad! Period.

        This last is, of course, not always true. And helping people find the middle path between being ‘gay’ is not bad and you are your religion are not inherently bad either (and finding a way to do that is not patronizing or condecending) is what is going to bring a lot more people around.

      • 76. Roxanne  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm

        I think that a good portion of them would have to confront their own latent homosexuality. They hate themselves first, then project that hate onto others. I remember reading a scientific study and the most homo hating men were also more aroused by gay porn than those with much more accepting views.

  • 77. BradK  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    @Pacific Justice Institute:

    Sisyphus called and he’d like his rock back.

    p.s. About your choice of the term ‘institute’ — where exactly are/were you institutionalized?

    • 78. Sheryl Carver  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm


      I’m not sure they are done playing with it yet.

  • 79. Michael  |  September 8, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Another slap down for the strident anti-gay activists! And just like that clown toy you hit and it comes right back up, we can be sure the unrepentant homophobes will pop right back up with more nonsense.

    • 80. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:17 am

      “Another slap down for the strident anti-gay activists! And just like that clown toy you hit and it comes right back up, we can be sure the unrepentant homophobes will pop right back up with more nonsense.”

      Well, they’re all making a good living off it, so of course they’ll keep milking the hate angle. How else would they get on the news, or have people listen to them, or be paid for their “opinion”. (I put that in quotes because I’m not even convinced that even they believe what they say, half the time.)

      None of them have any serious acheivements, and the only “experts” they get behind them are quacks.

      Really, the Christianists who follow them are sheeple who’re more comfortable as part of a congregation than as idividuals making choices. They’re a captive audience, even though their numbers are shrinking.

      • 81. Bennett  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:01 am

        Which made me think. Poorer people could lie cheat and steal to raise themselves up, but they don’t, which says something about good about their character. Unlike these people who lie and oppress, not even believing themselves, just saying what best greases the wheels on the money truck.

  • 82. Tom B.  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:57 am

    PJI, you have just earned…this.

    Bless your heart,


  • 83. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Question on California law: earlier we discussed the possibility that if the Republican candidate for governor or attorney general won in November they could try to reenter the case and rescue the H8’ers. But I seem to recall that the Governor gets the final word – would that mean that if Jerry Brown wins the race for Governor he could order a Republican attorney general not to appeal or intervene when the case reaches SCOTUS?

    • 84. Don in Texas  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:51 am

      As I recall, the 9th Circuit has scheduled its hearing for December 6th, well before the next governor and the next Attorney General take office. If the Court does not re-open the case after that date, it seems to me that the newly-elected officials will be unable to enter the case.

  • 85. Bolt  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:53 am

    The purpose of marriage, in California, is to channel opposite sex couples into procreating.

    • 86. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:44 am

      No, it is not.


      (don’t you wish all marriage equality arguments were this easy?)


      • 87. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:40 am

        Gee, I thought that in California and all around the world, that marriage was a way to recognize those people who are of age, and not closely related, who desire a lifelong commitment with one person, and a way to solidify that commitment and make it even more meaningful. You mean, I have been wrong about that for the last 47 years, six months, and 1 day? Damn! guess it’s time for me to enroll at Homer Simpson University and get the “facts” about it,

    • 88. nightshayde  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:54 am

      We’ve already done that — so now I’d like everyone else who wishes to marry to be able to join the party. No kidlets required!

    • 89. RebeccaRGB  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:29 am

      That argument doesn’t work on a federal judge, it doesn’t work on an attorney general, it doesn’t work on a Republican governor, and it doesn’t work on me. :)

    • 90. Bill  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:33 am

      Dear Bolt,

      You obviously need some nuts.

      Please go find some.


    • 91. Ozymandias71  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:51 am

      I remember reading that statement during the trial, and my jaw just hit the floor.

      I would think that conservatives and liberals alike would be aghast at the very IDEA of government ‘channeling’ American citizens like so much cattle.



    • 92. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:31 am

      Then I should never have been allowed to be married the second time. Certainly, at my age I had no plans to even to even attempt to conceive and even took precautions so that would not happen. So, if the purpose of marriage in California, is to channel opposite sex couples into procreating, why was the question “do you plan on having children?” not asked when we applied for our marriage license (or for that matter when I got married the first time). I’m sure that if a couple procreates, it is in the states best interest that the couple then care for those children. Considering the state of the education system in California, the state just might be interested in less procreation, that would mean fewer students needing fewer resources.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 93. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Remember when Trolls were qute little things with wild hair and little gems in their tummies?

    How things have changed….

  • 108. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:56 am

    qute = cute

    Too early in the morning, no spell check :<

    • 109. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:45 am

      That’s okay, I have two coffee pots working overtime, and in addition to MILK, you can have the following creamers–hazelnut, French Vanilla, Vanilla Caramel, Original, and Amaretto. Want some Yom Tov challah with that? It has honey on it, and raisins in it.

      • 110. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:49 am

        MILK is fine, i’m not that fancy a guy. The challah sounds wonderful. Thx!

      • 111. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:53 am

        Forgot to add (darn doorbell ringing): Coffee….the dark elixer of life! :>

      • 112. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:26 am

        Exactly! After all, Is there life before coffee?

      • 113. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:37 am

        Why’s there no coffee in the Bible?? How’d they get anything DONE??

      • 114. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:38 am

        Based on “foot-in-mouth” syndrome I had above, there definately SHOULDN’T be! :>

      • 115. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:49 am

        @Carpool Cookie: I think back then, they just ate the coffee beans without knowing exactly what it was, except that it managed to get you going.
        @elliom: You mean, I’m not the only one who suffers from open mouth, insert foot to the hip syndrome before I have had my coffee? I hope I’m not. It would get rather lonesome at times.

      • 116. Tom B.  |  September 10, 2010 at 5:23 am

        I have some Southern Butter Pecan creamer if you’d like :D

  • 117. John in WeHo  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:16 am

    As I recall, the 9th Circuit required the supporters of prop 8 to file documents supporting the notion of their having standing on the matter before the court by Sept 16th (or was it the 13th). This is 3 months before the hearing date. Is it possible that the court will rule that “they do not have standing” shortly after that due date next week, or does the court have to hear their oral arguments in Dec before ruling about the issue of standing?

    • 118. Leo  |  September 9, 2010 at 9:56 am

      [IANAL] The court told them to address the issue of standing in addition to any other matters in their briefing, but didn’t set any separate schedule for standing. I expect it will be argued the same way as the merits of the appeal: first in the appellants’ opening brief, which is due by Sept 17, then in the appellees’ brief, then in the appellants’ reply brief, then in oral arguments in December, and we won’t get a decision until a few months later.

  • 119. Sagesse  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Comprehensive summary of the Religious Right’s activism for the coming election, from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

    Lazarus Rising: Is The Religious Right Ready To Be ‘Born Again’ In The 2010 Elections?

    • 120. Ozymandias71  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

      Thanks for posting this information Sagesse!

      Forewarned is truly forearmed.



  • 121. ben  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:33 am

    I could be misunderstanding, but if nobody has the standing to appeal, doesn’t this mean the case has no chance to go to SCOTUS? I assume then the stay will be removed, couples from any state can marry in CA, and we’ll have to wait for a lawsuit from a couple that marries in CA, moves to another state and sues for recognition THERE in order to get it to SCOTUS, no?

    My point here is, this means that only CA will be effected. I was hoping for it to go to SCOTUS and apply to the whole country…

    • 122. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:44 am

      Ben, there are already couples who went to California in 2008 and are included in the 18,000 couples who married prior to the passage of Prop H8. This will still end up affecting the entire country even if it stops at the 9Th CCA, especially when couples who have been forced into the added expense of traveling out of state to get married get together and file class action lawsuits against DOMA to gain federal recognition and enforcement of the full faith and credit doctrines.

    • 123. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

      While it would be lovely if this went to SCOTUS and we won and there was a broad ruling that overturned all such marriage bans across the country it is probably not going to happen this time, but actually that is ok.

      If the Appellants have no standing and the 9th Circuit rules that way, then we win. Judge Walker’s ruling goes into effect (barring a further appeal to SCOTUS, which would likely fail for lack of standing too)and CA resumes issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

      This is the win that a lot of people are hoping for right now. As you may hear around here from some of our legal expert types, a good solid win is better than a possible loss. Or a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

      The job of Olson and Boies in this case is to get marriage rights for their clients. If they can best and most efficiently accomplish that by having the case end now, they are obligated to take that option. The SCOTUS trial would, at this stage, could benefit US, but possibly be detrimental to their CLIENTS, Perry et al, if they lose, which could happen.

      We tend to go back and forth about this around here, but in reality, if the Prop 8 case ended tomorrow with a win, we should take it, celebrate, and look to see what the next step of the battle is past this case, not try to hang on to this one.

      • 124. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:46 am

        Just wondering here. If the case go to SCOTUS, is there the possibility that their ruling could still only affect California as couples in California had the right to marry and that right was taken away. So, could they rule Proposition 8 unconstitutional on that issue only and not touch on same-sex marriage in general? And, that would therefore reinstate same-sex marriage in California but still not in other states? Or are they obligated to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage in general as related to the Constitution?

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      • 125. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:59 am

        @Sheryl, it is possible they could rule narrowly, applying only to the specific circumstances of California, or they could rule broadly, and affect all the states.

      • 126. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm

        Thanks, Ann. So, then that possibility is another to consider. We just always talk about if it goes to SCOTUS it will be for all of the states, was wondering if the circumstances could make a difference.

        As I’m not directly affected, don’t know which way I would like to see it go, decided at the 9th circuit or on to SCOTUS. What I do want is for everyone (hetero or homo) to have the same rights across the board. I realize that that is still down the road.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 127. Kate  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Since it’s possible that the date for appeal has already passed (Sept. 3; see Arnold’s letter and Jerry Brown’s by implication), is it also possible that the procreationists can’t even file an appeal, standing or not? Is there any possiblity at all that the 9th will see it this way and throw out any appeal the proH8ers attempt in the absence of Arnold and Jerry Brown?

    (IANAPP – I Am Not a Potted Plant.)

    • 128. Kate  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:14 am

      Oh. Maybe I am a potted plant. That double negative stuff got in my way.

    • 129. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:21 am

      Procreationists. I kinda like that as a generic term to describe them. I also like the fact that it’s emotionally neutral. Makes better arguments than NOMbies or H8rs, etc. (Though, shamefully, I’m guilty of using them myself. Bigotry on my own part? Must reflect on this…..)

      What would we call ourselves (we’re so diverse, we deserve a special name too)? Equalizers?

      • 130. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:42 am

        Well, we’re all “procreationists” in that none of us really want to see kids go extinct (except maybe in our own apartment buildings)….and our tax dollars go to family clinics and schools, etc, enriching the lives of children.

        We must keep searching!

        Though “Procreationists” sounds like “Creationists”…which I DO like.

      • 131. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:50 am

        I’m all for kids (want my own someday).

        I caught the creationist/procreationist thing, too. Between that and that procreation is really the only argument they think they have, I thought it kinda appropriate. Open to suggestions, however.

    • 132. Leo  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      The deadline is to file a notice of appeal. The “procreationists” have already done that.

      • 133. Kate  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:46 pm

        Rats. I was afraid that was the case.

  • 134. New  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    I just came across this:

    • 135. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      Right about 5:45, did you hear the implication that someone should take out Judge Walker???

      Also, the gross exaggeration about religious beliefs being outlawed — what a blatant scare tactic.

    • 136. Dee  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:49 pm

      wow this is utterly ridiculous. blatant lies. Walker stating how these religious beliefs hurt homosexuals in no way implies we can outlaw religious beliefs. all it does is prove why they shouldnt dictate law.

      how do these ppl get away with blatantly lying like that? and we all know their base doesn’t educate themselves so they will take it all at face value.

    • 137. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:49 pm

      Whatever you come up with, whatever you come to the table with in terms of public policy, if you come to that conclusion based on your religious beliefs, it is invalid.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 138. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm

        oops… the “public policy” part was supposed to be underlined.

        You cannot make public policy based on your religious beliefs alone. There must be a rational and logical and secular reason for it.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

      • 139. fern  |  September 10, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        Yes Andrew and we are still in the month of Fructidor, liberté égalité fraternité.

  • 140. fern  |  September 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Tony is right! I just bought a pair of Fry boots last month €199, a real man wears boots and more we had same sex marriage in 2003 and because of it I lost my religious freedom and I stopped going to church in 1961 and I wonder what can be carried in boots too now.

  • 141. fern  |  September 10, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    I’m not sure, but the prop8 proponents were not defendants in the case, they were witnesses and support for the defendants who refused to appeal.
    Anyway I was lol reading the SFGate article.

    • 142. Ann S.  |  September 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      Not sure who you’re replying to, but the Prop 8 proponents were defendant-intervenors in the case.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...