Rachel Maddow: Lack of DADT questions at Obama press conference “weird”… But why?

September 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm 233 comments

By Eden James

On Friday, Rachel Maddow — one of the foremost opinion leaders on DADT since her program launched in 2008 — talked about the historic DADT decision by Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday night and interviewed Major Michael Almy.

The 9-minute segment is well worth watching (h/t to ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ for posting in last night’s comment thread):

At one point, Rachel talks about how “weird” it was that no reporters asked President Obama about the DADT decision at Friday’s press conference. It was indeed strange that on the morning after this historic decision, not one reporter chose to ask the President about it.

At White House press conferences, President Obama calls on reporters to ask questions. In some cases, he is aware that a reporter covering a particular “beat” — for example, the Middle East — is likely to ask a question about that particular beat. By calling on reporters, the President (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc) can, to an extent, control the content of many questions.

That said, there were reporters from The Advocate (Kerry Eleveld) and Metro Weekly (Chris Geidner) — both publications that cover the LGBT community — present at the press conference. Geidner wrote about “The Presidential News Conference, And What I Didn’t Ask” on Friday:

“Although it was exciting to consider the possibility that I might ask President Obama a question at today’s news conference in the East Room of the White House, it apparently was more important to allow Fox News to ask the president about the “Ground Zero mosque” and the would-be-Koran burner than it was to allow an LGBT media outlet (or anyone else, for that matter) to ask about last night’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ruling.”

While Obama may not be familiar with Eleveld and Geidner, who write for less “prestigious” publications than the more familiar mainstream media outlets, the President is briefed ahead of time by Robert Gibbs and his press operation on which reporters to call on at these press conferences. And though Gibbs knows both Eleveld and Geidner, having called on them at several White House press conferences, I’m guessing Gibbs didn’t make a point of recommending that Obama call on them.

Still, the blame is shared by the “multi-issue” beltway reporters from traditional media outlets that are ostensibly responsible for addressing the most important issues of the day. And they failed to ask Obama a single question about one of the hottest topics in the news, on the day after this historic decision.

Perhaps it was because, until Friday, the DADT case had never been very prominent in the news, as Judge Virginia Phillips talked about in a New York Times profile piece yesterday:

“Honestly, I did not expect it to get as much attention as it did,” Judge Phillips said. “During the course of the case, there wasn’t a lot of attention paid to it.”

Indeed, the case did not receive much tradmed or new media coverage until the ruling came down, even from Rachel Maddow or in this forum (which is primarily focused on the Prop 8 trial and the right-wing organizations that made the passage of Prop 8 possible). In fact, aside from reporter (and Prop 8 Trial Tracker contributor) Karen Ocamb’s excellent coverage of the DADT trial on LGBTPOV, it seemed like the case was barely mentioned in the blogosphere either.

Karen wrote about the lack of attention on this case back on July 19:

Most of the LGBT leadership and equality activists yawned when LCR’s federal challenge to DADT commenced Tuesday, despite hours of testimony from DADT expert Nathaniel Frank and obnoxious objections from the Justice Department lawyers.

I drove up from West Hollywood for Tuesday’s opening arguments and was startled at how few non-attorneys showed up. After all, this is essentially the military equivalent of the federal Prop 8 trial – evidence in a court of law about how gays are officially treated as second class citizens by the federal government. But for all the high decibel attention over repealing DADT and the Pentagon’s homophobic survey – no one showed up with picket signs to demonstrate outside or packed the courtroom to support the plaintiffs in this serious David versus Goliath legal battle. What does this thundering absence tell the government about how much LGBTs really care about this horrendous law?

Was driving to hot Riverside just too inconvenient? Does the fact that the plaintiffs are gay Republicans play a role in LGBT and civil rights groups ignoring the case? Would there be a similar deafening silence if the plaintiff was photogenic Lt. Dan Choi or some fire-breathing progressive who wanted to stick it to President Obama, the Pentagon or the Department of Justice?

What does it say about the real principles of the LGBT movement for equality that no one but three local LGBT activists, a couple of Log Cabin members from Palm Springs and a handful of reporters showed up for part one of this trial?

For much, much more, read the rest of Karen’s post.

As a former reporter, here’s my take on why this case hasn’t received much coverage in the media:

The center of gravity in the repeal of DADT has resided in Washington, D.C. for years, as political pressure to overturn the policy has increased outside and inside the Beltway, driven by advocacy organizations as well as policy leaders. Unlike the Prop 8 case, in which the “action” was taking place in California, the “action” on DADT has been reverberating around Washington for years, from the White House and Congress to the Pentagon and inside the D.C. punditocracy. With the repeal of DADT seeming like a foregone conclusion to many traditional media reporters (who are fewer and farther between these days, due to the decline of the newspaper industry), this case failed to make it onto the radar of most “gatekeeper” editors and producers tasked with determining the day’s news. Without much news coverage emanating from the Riverside courtroom, many bloggers who rely on news accounts as the foundation of their content and analysis, took the tradmed’s cue and ignored the trial as well. And the negative feedback loop continued, as reporters, who rely on bloggers for news tips quite often, noticed the lack of coverage in the blogosphere as well.

There’s so much more to it than that, of course. But that’s my take, in a nutshell.

What’s yours? In the comments, tell us why you think there has been a lack of attention to the DADT case (until the ruling was announced)?

Entry filed under: DADT trial. Tags: , .

Hi Louis! “One Man, One Woman” stance on DADT exposes NOM’s duplicity and hypocrisy The “Witt Standard”: Former Major Margaret Witt’s DADT trial resumes Monday

233 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    funny, I was just watching this video. thanks ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ for posting earlier :) subscribing

    Reply
    • 2. Eden James  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

      Yes, that’s where I saw it as well. Just updated the post to credit ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ. Thanks Gregory!

      Reply
    • 3. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm

      scribin’

      Reply
    • 4. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:49 am

      Haha, oh goodness. Before I left the house for the day I subscribed to this thread… I didn’t know what subscribing did, so why not? ROFL! I got back just now and I had —102— (!!!) unread emails, all from P8TT!! Ha! I’m sorry; I can’t subscribe anymore. :) From now on I’ll just check this site (a lot) during the day. :)

      Reply
  • 5. Ronnie  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    subscribing to the weirdness….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 6. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm

      Me, too, please.

      Reply
    • 7. AndrewPDX  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm

      Ah… weirdness. What would life or my email inbox be like without it? Boring comes to mind.

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 8. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    If the CA Lt governor appeals prop 8 does he have legal authority to do that? If he does have legal authority can Arnold go and retract the appeal?

    Reply
  • 9. JPM  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    The trial received rec-listed coverage on Daily Kos

    Reply
  • 10. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    I agree with your reasoning, Eden, but would add, having read the transcripts of the DADT trial, that the arguments were not as easy to follow as the Prop 8 trial, which makes reporting painful. The DOJ kept interrupting the flow of evidence to make obscure technical objections, and even as I was reading, as a non-lawyer I couldn’t really assess whether there was any substance to them. What’s the point of trying to report something if you can’t make a confident assessment whether the case has real meat to it.

    Until the three federal cases decided this summer, most LGBT rights challenges have been obscure, poorly resourced, and more or less doomed from the start. The exceptions are the state Supreme Court marriage challenges, and the Witt DADT case at the 9th circuit.

    Without Boise and Olson’s star drawing power, I wonder if the Prop 8 trial would have gotten any significant coverage prior to the judgment either.

    Reply
    • 11. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm

      Interesting points…it is a GIGANTIC advantage to have Bose and Olson on our side…Easy to take this for granted.

      Reply
    • 12. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:46 pm

      Three cases? DADT, Prop8 and what’s the other one?

      Reply
      • 13. Stats Girl  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm

        DOMA

        Reply
      • 14. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm

        Statsgirl – of course. Thank you. Can’t believe I forgot about that -___-

        Reply
      • 15. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:55 pm

        And when you count the fact that the Witt trial begins tomorrow, and that there are TWO DOMA cases in Massachusetts, that means there are five cases that are in the Federal court system currently.

        Reply
      • 16. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:43 pm

        Richard, wow. I had only heard of the one DOMA challenge. What’s the other?

        Reply
      • 17. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:46 pm

        There are actually two challenges to DOMA in Massachusette–Gill and the one filed by the State of Massachusetts. The rulings from Judge Tauro were given at the same time, but they are two separate cases.

        Reply
      • 18. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm

        Can you imagine if all these finished up this year? How would THAT be for a Christmas present?

        Reply
      • 19. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:51 am

        @Anonygirl: It would be so wonderful! I’d probably put in a requrest for money instead of other gifts, and then donate it to whichever groups won the cases! :) (okay, maybe I’m giving myself too much credit. ;) )

        Reply
  • 20. Ed  |  September 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    What is beautiful about the three federal court decisions is that each recognizes that LGBT people have constitutional rights and that those rights cannot be stripped away because of some people’s religious beliefs. The US culture has changed to allow clear thinking on this issue, and that change will accelerate now that there is increasing awareness of the meaning of these findings- that we are as worthy of protection by the law as our heterosexual parents, siblings and children. Quite a ground shaking series of changes! And quite a beautiful series of precedents entering the legal corpus of this country.

    Reply
    • 21. Don in Texas  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:09 pm

      Well said and I agree completely.

      Reply
  • 22. draNgNon  |  September 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    I agree with a lot of your reasoning, but I also think there’s another element at play. IIRC the LCR brought this case in 2004, 10 years after DADT was in effect. having another roughly 6 years before it actually went to trial meant it’s not nearly as fresh as, say, the fast-tracked Prop 8, whose passage is still fresh in everyone’s heads.

    the ADD-driven news and blogosphere’s cycles run too fast to keep attention on something moving so slowly. so when the decision came down, it seemed like a surprise.

    Reply
    • 23. Heath  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:38 pm

      There’s even more than the valid points you’ve brought up. We’d already *seen* the federal courts’ take on DADT in recent years — via Cook vs. Rumsfeld/Pietrangelo vs. Gates, and Witt vs. Air Force, and in both cases, federal judges (from the First and Ninth Circuits, respectively) have upheld the constitutionality of the law.

      And *in particular*, since Virginia Phillips’ district is in the Ninth Circult, which upheld the constitutionality of DADT in the Witt case just two years ago, there really wasn’t much reason to expect that a district judge would overrule a decision affirmed by her superiors.

      Reply
      • 24. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm

        Witt vs United States Air Force was a different Coutr Case. And the Court of Appeals applied strict scrutiny. However her case was the application of the law on to Major Witt. The LCR court case is the law itself.

        I am pretty deep into the ruling by the Court of Appeals and it is facinating, very easy to read and understand and it gives a lot of background on Lawrence vs Texas which is virtually all our LGBT cases are relying on. Here is the link
        http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/witt_wa_20080521_decision-us-court-of-appeals-ninth-circuit.html

        I have not gotten to thier final decision yet though. it really sucked for her she was ONE MONTH from 20 years of Service and full retirement. One lousy month… These people were heartless, heartless.

        Reply
    • 25. AndrewPDX  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm

      Sorry for being acronym-challenged… what does ‘IIRC’ mean? And when giving due credit to ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ for posting the Maddow video, what exactly does ‘h/t’ mean?

      Just curious :)

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 29. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Very timely topic Eden. And you will be happy to know that because of the Rachel Maddow video that Kirille posted earlier I went and looked up who the White House Correspondents are, Wikipedia nicely had a list all ready for me and I started at the top and sent off an e-mail to Jake something at ABC news and chastised him for not asking about this trial. I am going to keep going through the list as time permits and send them all e-mails. Don’t knwo if it will do any good but I gotta try.

    Reply
    • 30. Don in Texas  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm

      Please BE SURE to let us know of any responses you receive. It will be very interesting to read their excuses.

      Reply
    • 31. Dpeck  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:51 pm

      You got mad email skillz, SGM. Go get ’em!

      Reply
  • 32. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    If the CA Lt governor appeals prop 8 does he have legal authority to do that? If he does have legal authority can Arnold go and retract the appeal? Is this not a big deal to people? No one isn’t speaking of this at all. Just silence from major LGBT journalists.

    Reply
    • 33. Karen Ocamb  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      Hi – Karen Ocamb here in WeHo. I’m the news editor for Frontiers In LA and editor of LGBT POV. This is my beat and I have been tracking it.

      Here’s the deal: the right wing is trying to pressure Lt. Gov Maldonado to file a reply while he is Acting Governor – Arnold is out of the country. In fact, they are even threatening him – since he had some votes they were pissed off about when he was a state senator. They’re saying if he does this, it’ll wipe away all the bad feelings. Maldonado was APPOINTED to the LT Gov. position by Arnold after John Garamendi won a congressional seat. So there is some question where Maldonao’s loyalty lies. Also – he is running to be Lt Gov against SF Mayor Gavin Newsom in November and this is an opportunity to prove he can seriously do the job by focusing on the fires and aftermath of the explosions in San Bruno. He just asked for federal disaster relief.

      So – going against his patron and appearing to cave into a special interest group at a time where there are more important issues demanding his attention would certainly be an issue Gavin would bring up.

      On the legal side of your question – the answer from the legal folks with whom I spoke is – no one knows. There’s never been a situation like this. Plus – is it legal for him to basically write a letter on intention to intercede and not a brief on Monday – and let the yes on 8 folks go from there. Again – no one knows.

      Which is why I haven’t written about it. IF something happens – which truthfully I doubt, give the explanation above – then we have a whole new legal area to deal with.

      Anyway – I was just checking in to write something re Eden’s post and saw your note and the one above so I thought I’d chime in. Hope that helps a little. – KO

      Reply
      • 34. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm

        Thanks, that’s very interesting. I hadn’t realized Arnold was out of the country.

        Reply
      • 35. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm

        Since he’s an appointee, not elected, doesn’t he “work” for the Governor?

        Wouldn’t this be the same situation as Imperial County,. who had no standing because they “work” for the state, and the boss said the state isn’t appealing?

        Reply
      • 36. Ann S.  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        Tony, once appointed, he IS the Lt. Governor, and the acting governor under certain circumstances. It has happened before that the Lt. Gov. has taken advantage of the Gov’s absence to do things that the Gov clearly wouldn’t have liked. We elect our Gov and Lt. Gov completely separately and they are often from different parties. Here they are both Rs, but it’s not as though they campaigned together or ran on the same platform.

        It’s akin to the VP assuming Presidential powers when the Pres. is put out for surgery or something, only it seems to be easier for it to happen in CA than with the US Presidency.

        Reply
      • 37. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:54 pm

        I wondered when I saw the Lt. Gov. at the blast site if his temporary power could do something to undermine us with the prop8 fight………. Please keep us posted.

        Reply
      • 38. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:59 pm

        Here’s a nasty article where “they” are trying to force Maldonado to do the very thing Karen describes above.

        http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/maldonado-appeal-prop8-whle-governor-prove-your-suitability-for-office

        Reply
      • 39. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

        why is Arnold out of the country, at such a crucial time? he’s basically cleared the way to let Maldonado take the riegns at this cruial time,

        surely they must have discussed this on some level, and are on the sam page, or Maldonado, paid big money for Arnold to step aside on this issue, so Maldonada can use it to his policitcal advantage.

        Reply
      • 40. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:20 pm

        And here’s what the nefarious Capitol Research Institute is saying:

        Sep 10, 2010

        The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the appeal of the challenge to Constitutionality of Proposition 8.

        But in accepting the appeal of Perry v Schwarzenegger they noted that the issue of whether the proponents have standing to bring this appeal will be decided at the hearing later this year.

        Attorney General and Governor Schwarzenegger have refused to defend the people’s vote and file the appeal. Governor Schwarzenegger is currently out of the country which means all the rights and responsibilities of his office fall to Abel Maldonado, California’s Lieutenant Governor.

        Contact Lieutenant Governor Able Maldonado and urge him as Acting Governor to appeal the Prop 8 case and represent the people.

        This is extremely time sensitive, the deadline is Monday for this appeal to be filed.

        Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado
        916-445-8994

        Campaign Office for Abel Maldonado
        for Lt. Governor
        831-759-2577

        Please call both phone numbers and urge Abel Maldonado to defend the vote of the people!

        Reply
      • 41. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:41 pm

        Thanks for the response.

        Reply
      • 42. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        Plus – is it legal for him to basically write a letter on intention to intercede and not a brief on Monday – and let the yes on 8 folks go from there

        There wouldn’t be a brief due Monday. Monday is simply the deadline for a notice of appeal. The first brief isn’t due until September 17. But, yes, there is certainly a question as to whether the governor (or the pseudo-gov) filing a notice to appeal by the deadline would be sufficient to let the Proponents mount an appeal with no further input/assistance from the governor.

        Reply
      • 43. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:39 pm

        I have a strong feeling Lt Gov Maldonado will file to appeal Prop 8. He is a supporter of Prop 8.

        Reply
      • 44. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:02 pm

        –But in accepting the appeal of Perry v Schwarzenegger they noted that the issue of whether the proponents have standing to bring this appeal will be decided at the hearing later this year.–

        I thought they had to prove standing before they could appeal? What happens if it is decided that they had no standing? Is the appeal thrown out, then? I’m so confused.

        Reply
      • 45. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:06 pm

        @ Rhie: If the Defendant-Intervenors are found to not have standing, then yes, the appeal is thrown out, and Judge Walker’s ruling stands, but only affects California. However, this would leave the evidence, and the ruling, on the books for future cases, even though it would only be at the level of persuasive argument. This would still be good, though, because AFER and the team they have assembled in Olson and Boies, and their attendant legal firms have made inferences that they will not give up the battle until everyone in America has the freedom to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with.

        Reply
      • 46. Bennett  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        Not only will you be redeemed in they eyes of the religious right, Mr. Maldonado, you will go down as a central figure in history, almost as important as that protestant wind! And later when you are vice president, you can play with the launch codes when the president goes to the dentist!

        Reply
      • 47. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:41 am

        @ Richard. Thank you for explaining. I really do hope they keep fighting this fight until it is legal all over. I know that public opinion doesn’t (or shouldn’t) affect court cases and rulings, but I think it will help morale.

        I also believe that initiatives shouldn’t affect anything more important than paint color of the state building.

        Reply
    • 48. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:59 pm

      So that is what these questions have been about, can the Lt Governor intervine…
      But don’t you rhink he would be afraid of what Ah-nold would do to him when he go back? We have all seen the size of Ah-nolds arms LOL!

      Reply
    • 49. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:34 pm

      This appeal thing is like the Energizer Bunny…. it just keeps on going…. and going,,,,, and going. Thank goodness the deadline is Monday.

      Reply
    • 50. Bennett  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm

      Lets see, San Francisco, Providence Town, Argentine, so many choices!

      Reply
    • 51. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      @Richard – thank you for explaining that. This is getting really complicated. It almost reminds me of the celtic knotwork I draw. Very complicated, but beautiful in the end.

      I hope all this ends up in the beauty of rights for all.

      Reply
  • 52. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    In Minnesota

    ““We’ve understood long before the Target situation that Minnesota was poised, as is New York, to be the next state to win marriage equality,” Solmonese told the AP.”

    HRC Counters Target’s Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Tom Emmer

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=6377&MediaType=1&Category=26

    Reply
  • 53. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Two reason why this may be stifled…

    1. The upcoming elections.

    2. This is the last thing we want the world to hear about while we are at war:

    (from: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471942928&QA_With_Lawyer_Who_Upended_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell)

    AMLAW DAILY: Wow. There’s a lot of uncomfortable stuff in this testimony. One witness talks about being called a “faggot,” being forced to simulate sexual positions, and even being fed dog food, walked around on a leash and locked in a dog’s cage.

    Reply
    • 54. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm

      You really don’t want to read the testimony. It’s gross. The truly heartbreaking part is the young man got through it all, was approved for officer training at Annapolis, and disclosed his orientation and was discharged. He reasoned, if it could happen once it could happen again, and he wasn’t safe.

      Reply
    • 55. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:48 pm

      It’s simply assumed that the people put there concerns on hold during election, we channel our energy into voting for the right guy, maybe for once we shouldn’t play that game, ending DISCRIMINATION is more important than being concerned about which party gets in.

      And sorry but the world already is aware of the DADT situation and the hypocrasy of the American gov’t fighting for other countries to achieve democracy when they themselves are not free.

      We could be using that as a threat to achieve our goals, not protect hyporcrasy.

      Foriegn countries could be offering asylum to LGBT military who are kicked out, they should take them in and continue full benefits, for such well trained soldiers. Well they may have to do some debriefing in terms of accepting their status as free . but the cost of that would be minimal

      Reply
  • 56. truthspew  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    I so wish Helen Thomas hadn’t shot herself in the foot. I’d dearly love to see one of the press pool throw Obama a curve ball that he doesn’t expect.

    Right now it’s like Kabuki theater. Odd and alien, not what I want from a president who as a candidate promised change we can believe in.

    Reply
    • 57. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      Oh nobody told you? The slogan got revised for the gays

      Yes We Can
      Yes We Can
      Just not today…

      Reply
  • 58. Karen Ocamb  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Hey Eden –

    Good report – thanks.
    I think there are a couple of things going on here. First and foremost – the three major stories at the moment are the economy, the Middle East peace talks, and that damn Koran story – which even if spun out of control, could have had major serious consequences. There was a limited amount of time and each of the reporters Obama upon – from a list provided by Gibbs and his political advisers – wanted to be the one to ask THE question that would yield the sound bite that would make them look good and smart.

    I had HOPED that someone would have asked Obama about the DADT ruling – but I didn’t expect it. She hasn’t actually entered the judgment yet – which would raise it to the presidential level if this District Court judge said DADT could no longer be enforced at all period. But right now, everyone is looking it over – especially to see how it might impact the big DOD report and implementation of repeal, as well as the political landscape. So the most he could say without getting in trouble with Holder and the DOJ is that the DOJ is studying the issue.

    Finally, Obama would probably have replied as blandly as possible, considering the senate and John McCain are returning on Monday and he wouldn’t want to appear to be preempting or interfering in the repeal compromise.

    Speaking of McCain – I’m writing a “think” piece for Sunday night/Monday tentatively called “The DADT Ruling, National Security and the Conscience of John McCain.” I intend to address some of the issues raised by some who left comments. Thanks – have a good weekend.

    Reply
  • 59. Linda  |  September 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    I have to admit that I had no idea of the significance of this trial. I am so ignorant of all things legal, I just didn’t get it.

    Reply
    • 60. Dpeck  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm

      Do you mean the Prop 8 trial about marriage equality? or the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell trial about not throwing people out of the military because they are gay?

      Reply
      • 61. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:17 am

        Probably the DADT trial. : \

        Reply
  • 62. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    From the Conta costa Times
    “But Abel Maldonado is a supporter of Proposition 8 and hopefully more willing to honor the obligations of his office than the current Attorney General has been” says Eastman. “Importantly, while the Governor is traveling outside of the State, all of the rights and responsibilities of the office of Governor rest with Mr. Maldonado.”

    The group made up of past and present leaders of various grass roots policy and legal organizations are asking the Lieutenant Governor Maldonado to file the appeal before a September 13th deadline.

    http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/maldonado-appeal-prop8-whle-governor-prove-your-suitability-for-office

    Reply
    • 63. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:25 pm

      Where is Arnold Schwartsnegger right now?

      Reply
      • 64. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:38 pm

        Arnold is in Asia right now for one week.

        Reply
    • 65. RAJ  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:02 am

      (Not relevant to DADT but…)

      Back on August 31st I wrote:

      “190. RAJ  |  August 31, 2010 at 7:48 pm
      In addition to Brad Dacus, president of PJI, another name you should be looking out for is former Chapman Law School Dean —John Eastman—. He was quoted in a number of articles around the time of the Prop 8 decision railing against Judge Walker. I listened to a Central Valley radio program a couple of weeks back where he was the guest and let me tell you, Eastman has A LOT of energy on this failure to defend prop 8 issue. Incidentally, Eastman was a recent and failed candidate for CA Attorney General (he lost to Steve Cooley) so he has quite a few specific ideas about what an Attorney General should be doing. Anyway, during the radio program he urgently and strenuously called for a mass flooding of outrage directed at the AG and Gov. and hinted that something was in the works with respect to seeing that there hand was forced. Maybe this is what he was talking about. He’s a raver, but he’s a smart raver, so beware.”

      today I add — here is the link to the radio program”
      [audio src="http://www.kmj580.com/common/global_audio/174/20993.mp3" /]

      John Eastman is on during the first half hour and he is at one point practically sputtering and angry about the AG and Gov not filing a notice of appeal re: prop 8.

      I hope this goes nowhere (and my sense is that it will go nowhere) but Eastman really, Really, REALLY means it when he says he wants to force standing with respect to those who support prop 8.

      Reply
  • 66. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Eden I think this is Breaking News…

    Reply
  • 67. Straight Grandmother  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    Sept 9th- Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado: In these tough economic times increasing trade is critical to California’s economy, and that’s why, this week, the Governor is leading a trade mission to Asia. More than 70 of California’s top business, technology, agriculture and tourism leaders are joining him and together they will strengthen California’s economic and diplomatic bonds with China, Japan and Korea.

    Reply
  • 70. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Late to the party, but finally here.

    Reply
  • 71. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    great work Straight Grandmother, I guess we’ll have to wait and see, the effects it has on prop8, and makes you wonder why we didn’t here of this plan before, this is becoming like a page turning novel, always an unexpected complication.

    and makes me wonder if it’s the kind of novel where the author has the ending planned, or just discovers it in the process of writing. wait and see,

    yes we can
    yes we can
    just not today

    Reply
    • 72. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:16 pm

      I’m thinking it’s the kind of novel written where the story comes through the author , sort of like a medium, s/he just lets it unfold, and actually has no direct impact on the ending, that would leave room to take into account, us, the readers, and the role we play in the outcome.
      politics of the day, gov’t and courts, all take their time , and due course, we know politicians lie, and feather their own nests,
      but WE the people, can be driven to the brink, when we grow weary of waiting, the people as a mass can be a force to be reckoned with, and change the course of history, it’s just that, in this case, well so far, the people have basically been polite, hat in hand, waiting for the political pocess,and court appeals, to just keep going , and , going, and going, as I said before, still no outcry from the American public, we sit idle, and watch, even the Quran burning pastor got more media attention, and a response from Obama, than any of our issues have.

      Velvetta, is mixed up about what side she’s on, but gave a hudge clue as to where she seeks her justice, and that was a part of that movement, the courts nor the policticians define her. They stood up and demanded there rights, and that courage came from somewhere deep inside them, and could only be responded to with honor.
      That calling deep inside came from a place that new they were right, they were going for something they were willing to die for, let alone fear losing jobs or benefits.

      The image of the girl in front of the tank at Tianimum square comes to mind, we need to find that kind of strength in our core, if she could stop a tank, certainly we could get Obama to sign his signature.

      This situation we are presently in, is partly because the people themselves have not acted, in both cases we have clear victory in the courts, and have had our equality as human beings affirmed, but I don’t think we as LGBT people truly believe that yet. we”re still waitng for the next appeal.
      When will we have the guts, like Choi, in the DADT caxe, or the couple who blocked the marriage commisoners office in the prop8 case (there was no backing by the community in either) I agree with a previous poster who said, once declared equal, by Walker, all further marriage licences should have been stopped, or stayed at that point, cause we know have a situation where again people are picking and choosing which part of the constituion to uphold.

      We could rise up, and push them to take the last step, meeting us with the acceptance as equal citizens, in a country that refuses to allow DISCRIMINATION in any form.

      Are we afraid. of a false prophet who called for a termination of our existence, do we need the politicians and courts to assure us of our safety, in order to claim our place at the table.????

      Why should anyone bother as long as we’re willing to play the game, using their rules, keeping us in our place, so they can win votes . If we’re fine with that, no problem.
      because believe me, they are usng us for their own goals at the present time.

      Reply
  • 73. mattymatt  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    As an LGBT reporter, I have to say that the PR campaign around the Prop 8 case was heads and shoulders above the PR for the DADT case. AFER set up a lovely website around Perry v Schwarzenegger, and made tons of information available about their work and the trial. In particular, I’ve found it very helpful that they’ve posted trial transcripts and rulings. On the other hand, I haven’t seen any comparable resources for reporters in the DADT case. I think the lack of coverage may be down — at least in part — to a lack of outreach to journalists.

    Reply
    • 74. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:03 pm

      Are you aware that LCR posted the daily transcripts during the trial? But I agree, there was less PR around the trial.

      Reply
      • 75. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:27 pm

        Yes, they posted the transcripts, but the first link for the PDF files to day five of the DADT trial is not working. I have all of the transcripts except Day Five, part one.

        Reply
      • 76. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        Kudos again to you Kathleen, and like I said to Rose the other day, you have done an amazing job of keeping us informed, you made the court documents available for the DADT trial, but we weren’t as engaged with the case, less PR from the media, but also less discussion on this thread.

        Wow it’s amazing to think Obama held a press conference the day after the ruling and took not one question.

        We can’t pont fingers, but I think we got our wake up call, Obama is not going to take action he wants to be pushed on it. he’s said that a number of times, and it sort of makes sense that it will mean something if we at least feel passionately enough to fight for it. even in some small gesture like drilling him in a press conference.

        Reply
      • 77. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:30 pm

        I saw that, Richard. Have you contacted them?

        Reply
      • 78. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:40 am

        @Richard

        “but the first link for the PDF files to day five of the DADT trial is not working.”

        Send them an e-mail. There was one missing when I was reading them, and they fixed it right away. It was there at one time, because I read it.

        Reply
      • 79. bJason  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:52 am

        I contacted the LCR repeatedly about Day 5 Part 1 and it still isn’t up. I stopped trying. I didn’t read any further because I didn’t want to get out of order (a little OCD thingy with which I deal).

        Reply
      • 80. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:15 am

        @bjason

        “I didn’t want to get out of order (a little OCD thingy with which I deal).”

        It was a weekday when I did it… their sysadmin may not work weekends.

        I also read the transcripts in order. It was the only way I could keep the train of thought clear in my head, because the DOJ lawyer kept interjecting with legal gobbldygook.

        Reply
      • 81. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:08 am

        I just got an email from Melissa Kennedy at LCR about the busted link on the first part of the transcripts for Day Five, and she is looking into it so that it can be fixed. I will let you know when it is.

        Reply
      • 82. bJason  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        @ Sagesse: I never did see the actual Day 5 Part 1. They had a link that worked for a day or two but it pointed to Part 2 – when I made them aware of this they discovered that THEY didn’t have Part 1. They disabled the link and that is how it has been for weeks.

        @ RAW: Awesome!! thanks! I just got frustrated and gave up on it. I e-mailed and called them almost daily for over a week.

        Reply
      • 83. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm

        LCR? What’s that – and I would be interested in reading the links.

        Reply
      • 84. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:21 pm

        @bjason

        I read it way back at the time of the trial. There was a lag of a couple of days, but as soon as the court reporters completed a transcript it was posted. Sometimes they reposted because a transcript had been edited or cleaned up… that’s probably what happened to Day 5 part 1.

        Reply
      • 85. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        Rhie,

        LCR is Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans.

        Reply
      • 86. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:45 am

        Anonygirl — Of course. I should have figured that out.

        Reply
  • 87. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    But it’s not like Arnold has been away and in isolation and has not responded.

    Arnold was here during the time that it could be responded to.
    ..rediculous to even consider otherwise.

    And as we heard before here:

    Reply
    • 88. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:46 pm

      The acting gov can file, and something tells me he will. This guy is running again, and Arnold is a lame duck. I hope I’m wrong. But Maldonado wants votes.

      Reply
      • 89. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:55 pm

        How can he file if the time limit for appeal is up?

        Reply
      • 90. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm

        It’s not up until Mon morning, Ray.

        Reply
      • 91. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm

        The Federal Court does not operate in a vacuum. It would be obvious that the filing is late and it is political. Rediculous.

        Reply
      • 92. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        Agreed, Ray. But unfortunately legal and possible.

        Reply
      • 93. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:13 pm

        “Here the Gobvernor excercised his discretion and decided not to appeal.”

        and

        “For all the foregoing reasons, the Governor respectfully requests that the petition for review be denied.”

        From:

        http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/08/Gov%20Letter%20Brief.pdf

        Reply
      • 94. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:16 pm

        There is an acting governor right now who can choose otherwise.

        Reply
      • 95. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm

        Ray Arnold is in Asia and our Lt. Gov is acting governor. An organization is pushing the Lt Gov. to appeal.

        Reply
      • 96. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm

        Ahnold is in Asia? What is going on in Asia that requires the presence of the Governator?

        Reply
      • 97. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:43 am

        SG, just so you know – even if Maldonado files a notice of appeal, that doesn’t guarantee this case goes to the Supreme Court. The most this would do would be to settle a question of standing for the 9th Circuit Appeal and I’m not sure it would even do that. There is the question of what would happen when Maldonado is no longer “governor”, i.e., when the real governor returns… and says, once again, as he has on numerous occasions and to every court that has been involved in this case, that he has no interest in appealing the decision.

        But, hey, thanks for encouraging a power struggle in California that will detract from the serious issues we have, like funding being removed for services to children, senior citizens and disabled people.

        Reply
      • 98. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:22 am

        Sorry, this posted in the wrong place. This was meant to be a response to SG’s encouraging people to further politicize this issue in the state of California, given that the current administration has made it clear that it is a waste of the state’s resources to do so.

        Reply
      • 99. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

        @Kathleen, Oh I totally agree with you that the situation is very fluid. If X did this would Y do this, what happens when there is a new election and new people in govt. Yup it’s all up in the air. What happens when Ah-nold gets back, etc.

        But, hey, thanks for encouraging a power struggle in California that will detract from the serious issues we have, like funding being removed for services to children, senior citizens and disabled people.

        I am not encouraging a power struggle, just commenting on the one that exists. It is not me running to the acting governor asking him to step in, it is the right wing CINO’s.

        Reply
      • 100. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm

        Can one of our legal eagles tell me something? If Maldonado files the appeal as the acting governor, can Schwarzenegger withdraw it as governor once he returns?

        In general, can an appeal be withdrawn if the interested party loses interest?

        Reply
    • 101. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:29 pm

      You’re all getting hyped up over something remotely likely to happen. Relax!!!

      Reply
      • 102. Bob  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm

        Ray, thanks for your confidence, and in a perfect world, and the way things are going , you’re probably right,

        But asking us not to be hyped about these issues, is like asking us to take heavy doses of tranquilizers, and be patient, oddly the politicians are asking us the same thing as they kick us back and forth in the process,

        I suggest unecessary hype is better than an outward display of compliance.

        Hype is arousal, and focus, which are not a bad thing and have served mankind well .

        Reply
      • 103. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:59 am

        Ray with all do respect, I don’t think it is outside the realm of possibility that the Lt Gov (now acting Gov will) follow through and file the notice of appeal. IMHO he is more likely to than not.

        If he is a politician running for office and he already supports Prop8 and he has got a whole bandwagon of people drumming a drum beat and promising him untold riches into the campaign chest as wel as other professional campaign support I think he will do it.

        As someone here posted California’s elections are independent where the people can vote for a Republican Governor and a Democratic Lt Governor. It is kind of a fractured voting system if you ask me but that is the way they do it there.

        Since the Lt Gov was appointed by Ah-nold to fill a vacancy, obviously he was not Ah-nolds first choice as a running mate, those wounds probably still sting the current Lt Gov. Politics are dirtty, look at what Karl Rove did driving the Evengelicals to the polls with their anti gay baiting and getting Bush elected. Here is a guy running for Governor, he is plenty motivated.

        All I can say is thank got P8TT covered Lou Engels “The Call” and verified the pallets of brand new un opened water bottles and block after block of jumbotrons with no one in front. This may cause the current Lt Gov to pause and wonder how much support he would gain and how much he would loose if he did this. I think his ultimate decision will be one that answers the question, “Will this help me or hurt me get elected” If you are a politician you can’t do a thing to move your agenda forward unless you can get elected, so that is always #1.

        If you do not want him to file a notice of appeal then you need to call
        Campaign Office for Abel Maldonado
        for Lt. Governor
        831-759-2577

        I am not going to call at all. I don’t want to hurt anyone in California but I am FOR having this appealed. I believe in the Court Case and I believe we will win the whole shebang, and I do want to see the case go all the way to SCOTUS.

        Like everyone here we all analzye- 1- the legal case, 2 -Benfits to self and family, 3-Benefits to society, to form our opinion.

        Let’s not beat each other up over this, I respect your right to have a different opinion than me. I will not personally attack anyone who has gone through the same 3 steps I have and comes up with a different opinion, an opinion that hopes for a California only win, in other words the court case stops at the District Court level and Gender Neutral marraige is now the law only in California.

        It is interesting to me that previously we had no say in this as it was all handled by the attorneys and the judges. But NOW, now that it is back to the political process now suddendly it seems that our actions calling the Lt Gov to file an appeal or calling him asking him not to , counts. Now suddenly it seems like your action will count for something, it could influence him. I don’t want to hurt anybody in Calif. so I am not going to call even though I really do want this to be appealed.

        Ray I do think this has legs. We will see how it plays out, it might be much ado about nothing but my gut tells me different, but that is only my gut.

        Reply
      • 104. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:48 am

        We need to remember that, as much as this case affects all of us and as much as we are all invested in its outcome, it truly is the Plaintiffs’ case first. The first benefit should legally be theirs. What we then are able to do with it on a larger scale from that point makes it ours.

        Reply
      • 105. bJason  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:58 pm

        @ Kate: You are correct, again!

        This is the Plaintiff’s case. While the outcome will affect others, their lawyers must do what will be best for them. If it ends now, they have won.

        Selfishly, I would like it to go all the way (not living in CA) and win. But it is not about what I want.

        Reply
    • 106. Ray in MA  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:31 pm

      Let’s all re-group Monday so I can say I told you so.

      Reply
      • 107. Kate  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:36 pm

        I definitely want to be wrong!!!!

        Reply
      • 108. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm

        Lt Gov supports Prop 8 that is enough for me to be concerned that he will appeal.

        Reply
    • 109. Tom B.  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:08 am

      Glad to see I have infected at least one other with the love of using the Losing Horns for EPIC FAIL :)

      Reply
      • 110. Ray in MA  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:14 am

        Yes, I lked it… very effective! (but one is enough, not 10 minutes worth! LOL)

        Reply
  • 111. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    We can all bet that CA Lt Gov. will appeal Prop 8. Brace yourselves everyone we are in for a ride.

    Reply
    • 112. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm

      That promises to be a poor choice on the part of the Lt. Gov.

      Reply
      • 113. Alex  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm

        Lt Gov wouldn’t care he is in on it for the votes and because he supports Prop 8.

        Reply
    • 114. BK  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:11 am

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. Getting confused. What are you talking about? He can appeal Prop 8? Why/how/this late in the game? O.o

      Reply
      • 115. Alex  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:32 am

        Last day to appeal Prop. 8 is the 13th since 11th falls on a weekend. Arnold is in Asia and a religious organization is pushing the Lt Gov. to appeal Prop 8. I can see this happening.

        Reply
      • 116. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 10:40 am

        Thanks, Alex.

        Reply
    • 117. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:03 am

      I think you are right Alex. The only thing that might sway him is if his campaign office was swamped with calls asking him NOT to file. That means the GLBT community has got mobilize on a dime, and we are stratigically behind already since the Pro Appeal group has been working on him hard without anyone knowing about it.

      The GLBT community would need to mobilize on a Sunday, today in order to counter act the head start the other side already has.

      Reply
      • 118. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:53 am

        I called. I asked him to consider the P8TT coverage of Lou Engle and the blocks and blocks of nobody, and to remember that while 7 million voted FOR Prop 8, 6.4 million voted AGAINST it, and the tide has been turning on that one, so he might want to think about those things, and then do the right thing for equality for all and not file.

        I am going to go over to Kate’s place now so we can sit together and worry.

        :)

        Reply
      • 119. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:04 am

        My personal opinion – it’s best we NOT contact him. I think it just brings more attention to the topic in his mind. If you are going to call him, my suggestion would be that you focus on what a waste of precious resources it would be for him to get involved in this as “acting governor” and that, in general, appealing it is a waste of resources, given the fiscal crisis the state is in. IMO, trying to appeal to the question of how many people think it’s a matter of civil rights or fairness is a lost cause with him. He already knows that those who care about these issues aren’t going to vote for him.

        Reply
      • 120. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:06 am

        @Anonygrl

        Come on over! We can fret and eat eggs together.

        Reply
      • 121. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

        I’ll be right over, Kate. Thanks!

        Reply
  • […] Rachel Maddow: Lack of DADT questions at Obama press conference … […]

    Reply
  • 123. Anonygrl  |  September 11, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    It looks like Louis’ blog has gone back to being invited readers only. I wonder if his targeting of other people’s donors has caused him some trouble? (Hi Louis, are you in trouble again?)

    http://www.oneman-onewoman.org/

    Reply
    • 124. BK  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:10 am

      ROFL. How is he supposed to ‘convert’ people to his viewpoint if only his loyal followers read his site?

      Reply
      • 125. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:02 am

        Well, THIS is interesting. Louis’ blog is back up. (Hi Louis!) but he has a ghost writer. There is a very long post about the current elections, but it uses words like ‘bi-cameral’ and mentions that the economy is sluggish, and uses other turns of phrase that are beyond any literary style Louis has ever displayed. So either he has a ghost writer, or he plagiarized the whole thing from somewhere, because it SAYS that Louis wrote it, but personally, I don’t believe it.

        Reply
      • 126. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:20 am

        Maybe he bought it from one of the internet term paper companies? After all, he doesn’t have to worry about flunking English Composition and Rhetoric when it’s only going on his blog.

        Reply
      • 127. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:26 am

        @ Anonygrl, yeah I noticed that also. This morning when I got up I read through the comments here and followed your link and saw Louis’s blog is open to the public. I also question if he wrote it, I don’t think he did.
        p.s. if you know of a way to change the interface to a different langauge please let me know. The interface alwyas comes up French for me (no doubt readin my IP address) and I can’t figure out how to change it to English.

        Reply
      • 128. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:52 am

        SG, I hope this doesn’t get lost in replies, you asked about display language, I never thought of that issue before!

        I looked in Internet Explorer, I don’t see any option setting that, but in Firefox, there is.

        Try going to the Tools menu, Option, click the Contect button at the top of the box, you will find Languages at the bottom, click the button to choose your preferred language.
        Let me know if that works for you or not.

        Reply
      • 129. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:01 pm

        @Tony, many thanks. I am okay in Internet Explorer, I have the American version of windows on my laptop. And now that I went back to the One Man One woman blog that is nto the one that gives me problems. I think it is Blogspot.

        Reply
      • 130. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm

        AND Louis is down again. (Bye Louis!)

        Perhaps being caught in plagiarism was not in his best interest?

        Be interesting to see if 1) the article is still there and 2) it says it is written by someone other than Louis when he is back in business again. It did say at the top it was written by Louis when I read it. I had to go back and check a second time, but that is what it said.

        Reply
  • 131. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 11, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    So, ntil end of day on Monday we have to worry about the Lt. gov.? If he does appeal, does the Gov have any recourse when he returns?

    Still, if he appeals, no new evidence can be heard.

    Hate that we have to worry about this.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    Reply
    • 132. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 10:43 am

      I wonder if there are any health benefits of worrying… we might be extending our lifespans by a couple years… ;)

      Reply
  • 133. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 11, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Had a thought after hitting send. If the Lt. Gov. does appeal, I hope that during the campaign, his opponents label him as being a discriminator and opposing the US Constitution, because that is what he will be doing.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    Reply
    • 134. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

      To top it off, Mormon Mom, there’s also the question of by what time an appeal would need to be filed. Midnight tonight? 9:00 Monday morning? 5:00 Monday afternoon? Midnight Monday night? It’s all so confusing…….

      Reply
  • 135. BK  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:06 am

    I just read Karen’s article (the one mentioned in this story) and the comments after it. I can’t believe how some of those commentators’ attitudes! It makes me sick. One pathetic and disappointing comment: “gay + republican = toxic hate-filled mess” … why would they insist on making this issue so partisan?

    Geh.

    Reply
    • 136. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:22 pm

      If the cases have taught me ANYthing is that this isn’t a Republican vs Democrat issue at all. Judge Walk was a HW Bush appointee. Log Cabin is a Republican group.

      It seems that younger Republicans are far more socially liberally than their parents. At least, my ultra-right wing Tea Party brother managed to convince my mother that it is a matter of life and rights to have LGBT people have the right to be each other’s POA and visit in hospitals.

      (Yes, I know that as a matter of common sense, but Mom is very, very, very Conservative Christian. Baby steps.)

      Reply
      • 137. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:41 pm

        Three cheers for your brother and a WOOT!

        Reply
      • 138. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        Yes, thank you! He can be really…strict in his views but he can be reasoned with. So can Mom. I hope one day to convince her that LGBT deserve marriage the same as hers.

        Reply
  • 139. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Lt Gov Maldonado has a twitter account http://twitter.com/abelmaldonado

    Reply
  • 140. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 6:10 am

    God, morality and the Constitution. Very well written.

    Morality and the overturning of Proposition 8

    http://www.grandonk.com/hot-news/morality-and-the-overturning-of-proposition-8.html

    Reply
  • 141. OldCoastie  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:18 am

    I think this trial wasn’t covered in the LGBT online press because it was the Log Cabin club… lotta sniggering that it was the Republicans pressing the issue… and apparently, therefore, not serious…

    When it was picked up by the gay blogs, it wasn’t picked up by mainstream media…

    it’s just silly that we can’t work together on common issues.

    Reply
  • 142. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:06 am

    http://hoguenews.com/?p=11792

    Article about the possibility of Maldonado appealing prop 8, from a conservative news site.

    Reply
    • 143. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:50 am

      Stepping back and pausing for reflection.

      Up til the San Bruno thing, Maldonado was relatively unknown to CA voters (relative to Gavin Newsom). He was appointed, not elected. His reaction to the state of emergency in San Bruno is much better visibility for him going into the election than appealing Prop 8… plus he has to have more than enough to do this weekend responding to the emergency. The bigger political win is playing the ‘leadership in a time of emergency’ card, which appeals to all Californians.

      Note that the religious group called off their phone in campaign to the Lt Gov office as it was tying up the phone lines taking calls related to San Bruno.

      As Harvey would say, have hope.

      Reply
      • 144. Alex  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:54 am

        That is because the Lt Gov office told
        them to contact his “campaign office” number and not the “lt gov office number” because of the fires in San Bruno.

        Reply
      • 145. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:00 am

        I like your thinking, Sagesse.

        Reply
      • 146. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:16 am

        @Alex

        “That is because the Lt Gov office told
        them to contact his “campaign office” number and not the “lt gov office number” because of the fires in San Bruno”

        Understood. I was just referring to the fact that, if you are orchestrating a grassroots call-in campaign over a weekend, your message gets diluted when you have to change the call-in number in mid-‘flood-this-number-with-your-outraged-call-to-action’.

        Also, it dilutes your message further still when your grassroots call to action turns into a grassroots public nuisance when people are dying or injured or have lost their homes.

        Reply
      • 147. Alex  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:22 am

        I wouldn’t be surprised if he did file an appeal. I do not trust him at all. Like I said before he is a Prop 8 supporter. This makes me very concerned.

        Reply
  • 148. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Following up on the Lambda Legal link, it’s not the case in every state that one must be married to adopt the children of one’s partner. In fact, second parent adoptions are possible in about half the states.

    Thanks for this info; it helps me see the picture more clearly. Adoptions are definitely not my forte (which needs an accent mark….), and seeing how many states allows second parent adoption is revelatory. How wonderful for all those folks that they can just relocate briefly (I’m guessing that just a trip to one of those states wouldn’t pass muster) and make it happen. It was also surprising to see that Alaska is one of the most accepting of gay adoptions — how did Palin let that get through????

    Reply
    • 149. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:28 am

      It probably happened either before she was elected governor, or was put into a bill that she was going to sign come hell or high water.

      Reply
      • 150. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:30 am

        Likely so. Or maybe she didn’t read it and it slipped by, maybe while she was gazing at Russia from her house….

        Reply
      • 151. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:45 am

        LOL Richard :)

        Reply
      • 152. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:52 pm

        That’s great news, SG! Looks as though the adoptions can be taken care of for them as close as DC. I’m surprised their Virginia lawyer didn’t tell them that. All this time, and it could have been legalized all along. Glad there’s a solution for you.

        Reply
      • 153. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        Yeah, Palin was only Gov. for what, about 2 years? The famous half-term “I am not a quitter” quitter.

        Reply
    • 154. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:50 am

      Kate, I’ll head over to Lambada Legal and check that out. When our daughter in law was having trouble conceiving my daughter applied to adopt a child. There was quite a a process, questioneers, back ground check, a social worker makes a home visit, I would imagiine this would be the same in all states, and naturally you would have to be a resident of the state you are asking the court for adoption approval. I did talk with my daughter about it a few hours ago and she said they went to a top attorney, that the attorney wrote a book for lawyers about adoption laws and process in Virginia. She told our daughter it is impossible in Virginia.

      Reply
      • 155. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:54 am

        This will be interesting to find out, with SO many states making it legal. Virginia definitely does not, but there are lots that do. Richard says North Carolina (not too far from Virginia, but maybe there are states closer to them, too) is one of the good ‘uns. A move may be in order.

        Reply
      • 156. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:09 am

        Yes, it’s not a possibility in Virginia. I was addressing the larger question of the state of affairs throughout the country, not just SG’s particular interest. I was responding to the claim that only 14 states permit adoption by couples. While that number may be correct for adoption of non-biological children by a gay couple (I haven’t verified it), it does not reflect the situation for second parent adoptions.

        Reply
      • 157. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:21 am

        @Kathleen, can you share your source? I was just talking to my daughter today about moving.

        Reply
      • 158. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:26 am

        SG – this is the link posted in the other thread.

        http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/issues/marriage-relationships-family/parenting/overview-of-state-adoption.html

        Reply
      • 159. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:49 am

        I started checking at Lambada Legal but it is very confusing. Here for example is from the HRC about North Carolina-

        Permits single LGBT individuals to petition to adopt? Yes.
        North Carolina law permits any adult to petition to adopt. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 48-1-103.

        Permits a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt? No.
        State law provides that, “If the individual who files the petition is unmarried, no other individual may join in the petition.” (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 48-2-301)

        Permits a same-sex partner to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship? No explicit prohibition.
        There is no explicit prohibition, and some lower courts have allowed second-parent adoptions to proceed. Additionally, a recent decision by the State Court of Appeals allowed a second-parent adoption to stand. Judge Wanda Bryant wrote in the court’s opinion that, “While [state law] does not specifically address same-sex adoptions, these statutes do make clear that a wide range of adoptions are contemplated and permitted, so long as they protect the minor’s ‘needs, interests, and rights.” Boseman v. Jarrell, 681 S.E.2d 374, 381 (2009).

        See this is where it gets tricky if you are actually in the situation. You would want to move to a state where it is very clear in the State Statutes that a same-sex partner is allowed to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship. If I read this right in 2009 an Appeals court in NC permitted an adoption to go through. But that doesn’t make it state law, only i would suppose, in that Appellate District where the case was heard and approved is it settled law untill their Supreme Court gets a case. If you moved there and tried it in a different Appellate District those judges might rule differently.

        In my mind this does not make a blanket statement that it is legal there.

        And if you go through the list at Lambada Legal there are a lot of states like this as they write in their comments, “Well in this case a lower court let the adoption go through” But it is not expressly permitted in state law. It is very unsettling to say the least, but thanks for looking at that Kate and pointing me to the link it has been a while since I checked that specific website, I appreciate it. Somewhere I saw a map that had the states shown on a map the laws regarding SS Couples adoption laws. It was much easier to see it on a map.

        Reply
      • 160. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        SG — what’s the nearest state to Virginia that looks positive? Alaska looked the most supportive to me. I like Alaska a lot (except for Sarah Palin…)

        Reply
      • 161. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        Kate, here I went right to the Lesbian Source as they focus on Lesbians. National Center fro Lesbian Rights. They show 17 states permit second parent adoption.
        http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Legal_Recognition_of_LGBT_Families_04_2008.pdf?docID=2861

        I guess for my daughter she has to go north to DC, New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

        To get to any warm weather states she would have to move across country to Nevada or California.

        It is really hard. My daughter in laws family is in the area and both my daughter and her wife have good jobs and they bought a beautiful new home. They would have to uproot and start all over. If you go to the National Center For Lesbian rights website and look for information on families Washington DC is wonderful. They just passed a law last year that said for two lesbians using artificial insemination both moms immediatly go on the birth certificate. You do not even have to go thorugh any adoptioon process at all. Right fromt he get go, right at birth the children have two legal parents. How nice is that.

        Our son lives in DC and when he bought a condo he insisted he would only live in DC and not the surrounding states becasue of legal prtections ofr GLBT people there. I guess he was right.

        Of course if we get legal gender Neutral marriage in this country, for the whole country then they get to have the second parent adoption as they are then a married couple. Then my grandchildren would have 2 parents and 4 grandparents instead of 1 & 2 as they ahve now.

        Reply
      • 162. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm

        Whoops — ended up in wrong thread. Here’s my post again:

        That’s great news, SG! Looks as though the adoptions can be taken care of for them as close as DC. I’m surprised their Virginia lawyer didn’t tell them that. All this time, and it could have been legalized all along. Glad there’s a solution for you.

        Reply
      • 163. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        @Kate, yes there has always been a solution, 17 different possibilities, but it is not in any way shape or form a great solution. Think of what they would have to go through, sell their house, re title thier cars, get new jobs, buy a new house, rip the kids away from their legal grandparents in Virginia.

        My daughter lives in sourthern Virginia not northern Virginia close to DC.

        No hetrosexaul couple has to go thorugh all that to have a second parent adoption! It is a lot too go through to get legal parental rights.

        Reply
      • 164. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        @kate, maybe I should clarify this, it is not like getting married when you can just drive up to DC and in an afternoon get married. You don’t jsut drive up there and get an adoption done. For adoption you actually have to live in DC. This would be the equivelent of telling everyone in California if they want to legally have a co parent adoption they all have to move to Nevada. (Hypothetically say if California did not have legal 2nd parent adoption whihc they do have).

        Reply
      • 165. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        Gay people still have to move to states where their marriages are legal if they also want to have them “count.”

        Reply
      • 166. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        @Kate, You are SO Right about that. If you want to be legally married youu have to move to a particular state. And I think your choices then are even less, correct me if I am wrong but I think it is only 9 states and DC that permits Gender Neutral Marriage.
        I think New York recognizes marriages performed in other states so maybe you add 1/2 for that. It’s horrible and so so so wrong.

        With 2nd parent adoption at least you get a whopping 17 choices. I think they would move right away to North Carolina if they had it, for sure legal.

        Reply
      • 167. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:32 pm

        SG, There are only 5 states plus DC which permit ss marriages. I can’t believe this is such an important issue to you and you know so little about it. Oh, I almost forgot–it’s not available in the state that would benefit you, so you don’t care what’s happening anywhere else.

        Reply
      • 168. Straight Grandmother  |  September 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm

        @Kathleen, you said to me
        “Oh, I almost forgot–it’s not available in the state that would benefit you, so you don’t care what’s happening anywhere else.”

        Do you really think people believe you???????????????
        Do you realize how small and petty statments like that make you look?

        I guess I should contact GetEqual and ask for my donations back then since I don’t have anyone in my family in the military. Oh and the birthday gift my son gave me which a donation to GetEqual.

        I guess I should stop writing to White House Correspondents calling them on the carpet for not asking President O any questions about the LCR DADT court case WIN, cuz you know I don” ahve anybody in the military.

        Oh and I guess I should also call that GLAD organization who put on the DOMA Courtcase in Boston and ask for my donation back, gee since no one in my family lives there.
        I forget the name of the organization but it only serves the North East and it had a name similar to GLAD. I could go look up my credit card bill but I am not going to waste another minute of my time on your laughable attacks on me.

        Oh and I guess I need to call Billy and ask him to send me back that big 8 foot rainbow flag I bought over the Internet and paid for next day delivery for the NOM counter rally in Indianapolis, since I don’t have any family there.

        And I guess I can let Courage Campaign keep those donations as this case does have the potential to positively benefit my family.

        Oh yes this isn’t the first time you have called me selfish and self centered, fortunately this community is much bigger than you and by now they are all seeing the pattern in your baseless attacking posts to me. Your little rants are meaningless to me.
        Do I love my grandchildren and am working in any way that it is possible for me to do from France to get them 2 parents instead of 1? You bet your ass I am. Do I want to be the legal granparent to my grandchildren, you bet your ass I do. I make no apologies to you or anyone else for wanting what is best for my grandchildren, that is what GOOD grandmothers do.

        Since I am happily married to my husband I am not keeping tabs on knowing exactly every single state that permits Gender Neutral Marraige. I bet the majority of the people here can not accurately name all the states SSM is legal, just another nitpick to jab at me. I really could care less.

        …oh, Bless Your Heart.

        Reply
      • 169. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm

        StraightGrandmother – Oh, heh, you’re from the southern US. Well done.

        I would say more but I am upset enough on your behalf as to be just as rude as Kathleen. All I will say is I admire you and find you to be a wonderful ally – and I have only been reading and responding to comments for about a week.

        Reply
  • 170. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:27 am

    For an excellent legal overview of the Prop 8 battle to this point, go to the KGO archives online. This morning in the 1:00-2:00 hour, Pat Thurston had attorney Fred Hertz from makingitlegal.net as a guest, and it was an excellent hour. The first caller alone is worth hearing just for the amazement value – he claims that there is some kind of drink or potion that teenagers are given by gays to “turn” them gay and make them join the ranks. And this guy’s vote is equal to any one of ours……

    Reply
    • 171. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:58 pm

      A potion…to make people gay…good grief. Is he living in Harry Potter World? I thought people like him believed magic to be the devil’s work even while they insist it doesn’t exist.

      Reply
  • 172. Ronnie  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:29 am

    A friend posted this on Freedom Fighters…thought I would share…It a promo for a documentary about the March for Equality on Washington last October….I have YouTube videos of the march but it will be great to have a dvd (although not yet on dvd…just showing at film festivals) to show my future kids…& say “I was there. I was at that march, right in the thick of it, marching for Equality, Freedom, & Love.”….<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 173. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:59 am

      Ronnie, thanks for sharing, it gave me goose bumps. You know how I like a good public protest. I think protests are so inspiring, you still have your memories and are motivated to keep fighting for the cause. Do you remember how many people were at the DC protest? Ever since the #NOMTourFAIL I have a curiosity for the numbers :)

      Reply
      • 174. Ronnie  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:19 am

        250,000 give or take…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 175. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Newsweek: DADT ruling could spur Senate action

    Reply
    • 176. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:07 am

      I left the following comment on the Newsweek article

      “The importance of this ruling is not just the decision. (a) All the evidence and reasoning behind the decision are relevant to the Senate vote on repeal, and should not be ignored. And (b) all the evidence and reasoning are available to the joint working group who have a report to deliver on Dec 1, and should not be ignored by them either. In view of (a) and (b), the Senate should just get on with debating and passing the Defense Authorization Bill and leave the repeal language (which is identical in the House and Senate bills, and does not need ‘reconciliation’) alone.”

      Reply
  • 177. Wolfinlv  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:12 am

    ok this has been my question since the beginning of asking for DADT to be repealed.

    Before DADT GLT people were unable to serve under the UCMJ at all. And there were “witch hunts” for them. I know as I was the subject of one such witch hunt. Luckily for me I had lots of L friends and was smart enough not to have anything and I do mean anything in my locker or bunk on board my ship. So now that DADT is gone will the military be able to revert to the old rules and regs under the UCMJ and go hunting for us again? What’s to stop them from doing this… What new law is in place that says they can serve without issue?

    Just asking.

    Wolf

    Reply
    • 178. Joel  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:01 am

      IANAL, Wolf, but these are things I’ve been hearing, and of course they all differ wildly:
      1. The “sodomy” provision of the UCMJ became unenforceable with the Lawrence v Texas decision
      2. The UCMJ is still enforceable in it’s entirety because the military is not within the SCOTUS’ jurisdiction
      3. Soldiers cede their constitutional rights when they sign their contract, so Lawrence v Texas can’t be applied
      4. A bunch of other stuff that I dismiss as fringe element garbage

      I’m sure that helped immensely!

      Reply
      • 179. wolfinlv  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:11 pm

        when I enlisted the I was told that the only constituional right that I retained was the right to freedom of religeon. In other words I had the right to church services and to chaplain service as needed and available. All other rights are negated. In other words freedom of speech (what you could say to whom you could say it, tattoos, piercings), freedom of association (who you were allowed to associate with and where you could go), were all gone until that enlistment was over. And even the manner in which you could have sex was determined solely by the UCMJ. (missionary position and only if you were married). Sex of any other kind was prosecutable under UCMJ code of conduct. Oddly enough this was only ever prosecuted against heterosexuals if the woman complained never if the guys talked about it in berthing or work areas but it was used against homosexuals.

        So without DADT I’m afraid that without anything else there is nothing (as if dadt really stopped them) to keep the military establishment from persecuting GL folk. We won’t even broach the subject of B and T yet.

        Reply
      • 180. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm

        @wolfinlv

        Regarding suspension of constitutional rights in the military, I think what this case is getting at is that the rights of LGBT servicemembers are infringed in ways that the rights of other servicemembers are not.

        Reply
      • 181. wolfinlv  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm

        @Sagess,

        Yes I know that, but what I’m saying is what goes into effect now that DADT is gone… does it go back to what I was saying. In that case it’s actually worse that DADT in that they can go into your car, house, apartment, locker, bunk looking for stuff to prove that you are gay. Which is what they tried with me. But I kept nothing of that nature so didn’t get kicked out… Under DADT they couldn’t ask or search they had to have the proof given to them by someone.

        LOL IANAL (wow love acronyms but you should be carefull with that one as often people say them as a word)

        Reply
      • 182. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:18 pm

        @wolfinlv

        I’m really out of my depth, but I think that, once DADT is repealed, the idea is that the president would issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the military based on sexual orientation. Like Harry Truman 2010.

        The objective of repeal cannot be to go back to 1992.

        Reply
    • 183. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      @wolfinnlv

      And even the manner in which you could have sex was determined solely by the UCMJ. (missionary position and only if you were married).

      For Real? You can understand how I would question that right?

      Reply
      • 184. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:10 pm

        Wulfie’s partially correct.

        10 U.S.C. § 925 : US Code – Section 925: Art. 125. Sodomy

        (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
        (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

        I couldn’t find anything related to heterosexual fornication, in general, and nothing about positions, though the thought of someone going through the Kama Sutra and deciding which positions are legal and which are grounds for criminal charges is hilarious.

        Still, the fact that a legally married husband and wife engaging in butt sex is grounds for a court martial is astonishing, especially considering that a signficant percentage of straight couples engage in said activity.

        Reply
      • 185. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:18 pm

        You gave me a good laugh…

        the thought of someone going through the Kama Sutra and deciding which positions are legal and which are grounds for criminal charges is hilarious

        I am playing around with indenting using block quote, I hope it works, I cna’t tell what you use to end it.

        Reply
      • 186. wolfinlv  |  September 12, 2010 at 7:53 pm

        yes for real.

        Reply
      • 187. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

        Good point about the husband-wife “butt sex”. LOL. I still haven’t figured out how they pass up the normal way of doing things… it would be so much easier, plus it wouldn’t have the possibility (most of the time) of causing pain to the woman. Heheh.

        Reply
      • 188. Lightning Baltimore  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:06 am

        People do it for a variety of reasons.

        For one, I’d imagine it feels quite different for the woman, and I know it feels different for the man. I’ve read testimonials from women who love it, actually. Also, there are straight guys who, um, like role reversal with prosthetics (I’m uncertain of your gender, but guys’ bodies are built to like receiving).

        If it’s done carefully and correctly, there should be little to no pain, and any pain should quickly subside.

        Reply
  • 189. Jim  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:50 am

    On Prop 8, if the Lt. Gov files an appeal can the Gov, on his return from Asia withdraw the appeal?

    Reply
    • 190. Joel  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:06 am

      I’ve been wondering that same thing…

      Reply
    • 191. John  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:40 am

      Assuming Lt Gov files to appeal Prop 8. Deadline information below:

      Deadlines. Filing documents electronically does not alter any filing deadlines. All electronic transmissions of documents must be completed (i.e., received completely by the Clerk’s Office) prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that day. Where a specific time of day deadline is set by Court order or stipulation, the electronic filing shall be completed by that time. Although parties can file documents electronically 24 hours a day, attorneys and parties are strongly encouraged to file all documents during normal working hours of the Clerk’s Office when assistance is available.

      Reply
      • 192. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm

        Lt. Gov. Maldonado should think very carefully before filing an appeal during this brief window. He could be walking their side right into a legal trap of their own making.

        Here’s how.

        1. Lt. Gov. Maldonado files his appeal tomorrow on behalf of Prop 8. He manages to submit a brief just under the deadline, before Gov. Schwartznegger returns.
        2. A legal dustup ensues as Schwartznegger tries to withdraw from the appeal. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Ninth Circuit does not let the State withdraw.
        3. The Court decides that Protect Marriage does not have standing for an appeal, but the legal intervention of the Lt. Governor does permit the case to be decided on its merits.
        4. Protect Marriage, since it doesn’t have standing, isn’t allowed to defend Prop 8; and the Governor, having returned to the state, does not mount a defense either. Our side wins by forfeit – and the Prop 8 people cannot appeal the ruling to SCOTUS, having relied on the temporary intervention of the Lt. Governor to get this far.

        Result: the ruling becomes binding over the ENTIRE Ninth Circuit, not just California, and can’t be appealed further. Same-sex marriage becomes legal in eleven Western US states (including my home state of Oregon!)

        Kathleen – is this possible?

        Reply
      • 193. Brian  |  September 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm

        @Dr. Brent Zenobia if the 9th circuit doesn’t allow Arnold to withdraw the Lt Gov. appeal the Prop 8 DI’s will be able to appeal the prop 8 decision.

        Reply
      • 194. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:29 pm

        @Brian – that doesn’t make sense. The whole reason why the DIs wanted the Lt. Gov. to appeal in the first place was the concern that they may not have standing. If the Ninth Circuit decides to allow an appeal from the Lt. Gov but simultaneously rules that the DIs don’t have standing to appeal on their own – which is quite possible – then any appeal of the decision by the Ninth Circuit would have to be made by the Lt. Gov to SCOTUS, not by the DIs.

        By then, of course, the Governor will presumably have returned to the state, and the Lt Gov will no longer be able to exercise his power as acting governor to appeal. They will be up the creek without a paddle – unless the new Governor is a Republican.

        I can foresee that this case could take a lot of twists and turns on its way to SCOTUS – if indeed it ever gets there.

        Reply
      • 195. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:35 pm

        I don’t think there are any clear answers here, but my guess is that if the Lt. Gov appeals and if the Gov can’t withdraw it, that the DIs might be able to also appeal. This would be somewhat analogous to their being allowed to appear at trial, since the State had put in an appearance and so there was a “case or controversy”.

        Reply
      • 196. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

        Oh, wow! I can imagine the result of marriage equality being “imposed” (LOL) on the 11 western states… especially the reactions in Utah! Especially my Mormon friends there (I moved from UT about 1 1/2 months ago). :)

        Reply
  • 197. Bennett  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:03 am

    what is this louis blog that is reffered to so often.

    Reply
    • 198. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      Louis Marinelli, who drove the bus for the NOM tour, has a website called oneman-onewoman.org.

      He is a mediocre writer, and much more outspokenly anti-gay than NOM is, most of the time. He also has almost no following except us, and he is a lurker here (hi Louis) because we notice every so often he refers to something he read here, or his blog is amended because of some comment we have here.

      Yesterday he was closed down for a bit (apparently to do some restyling) and then he reopened with a long political post that I am not certain he fully understands by reading it, but am completely certain he did not write.

      Reply
      • 199. Bennett  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm

        Thanks i will look it up, i guess its locked down for comments like NOMs then too? All the bigoted sites are comment free, and stale, go figure. I guess we all can take credit for that. Nothing like shining the disinfecting light of the truth on these people. I guess they don’t want us telling the sheep whats for dinner.

        Reply
  • 200. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:06 am

    I think the reason the DADT case didn’t get the same level of attention is that there have been legal challenges to the military’s discriminatory policies dating back to Leonard Matlovich, the first person to contest his discharge back in the 1970s. In his day Matlovich was (along with Harvey Milk) the best-known openly gay person in the country. He was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1975. He lost his court case, and every other challenge (pre- and post-DADT) has similarly lost in court. The courts have been very deferential to the military. So, while we wished the Log Cabin Republicans well, I think the predominant reaction in the media and the LGBT community was that it was unlikely that the courts would find in our favor.

    It wasn’t well understood outside the courtroom that this case was different – it was challenging the constitutionality of the policy on its face on behalf of all serving LGBT, rather than an as-applied challenge from individuals facing discharge. It’s a legal distinction that a lot of people didn’t (and still don’t) understand. Hense, the lack of interest. I think that lack of interest will likely continue until the ruling is upheld at the appelate level, at which point people will sit up and take notice. There’s probably a lot of skepticism that the ruling will hold up under appeal because, as I said, the judiciary has been so deferential to the military.

    Reply
  • 201. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Well Witt vs Department of the Air Force is still alive (pretty sure) and although IANAL I think what the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their decision looks promising. I read it through kind of quickly so I really should go back and read it again more slowly.

    I was really interested in what the Appellate Judges wrote about Lawrence vs Texas, they wrote quite a bit about it. They did send it back to the lower court to clarify an issue. Like I said I read it fast but off the cuff it looked pretty good for Witt. The Appeals Court did not just shoot her down and deffer to the Air Force.

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/witt_wa_20080521_decision-us-court-of-appeals-ninth-circuit.html

    Reply
    • 202. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:21 pm

      While the Court in Lawrence did not explicitly state that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to choose to engage in same-sex activity, it came very close to doing so.

      The 9th Circuit pointed this out and is bound by the SCOTUS decision. That’s a very positive development.

      Reply
  • 203. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    From the 9th Circuit’s decision in Witt:

    “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude
    upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner
    that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence, the government
    must advance an important governmental interest, the
    intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion
    must be necessary to further that interest. In other words,
    for the third factor, a less intrusive means must be unlikely to
    achieve substantially the government’s interest. …

    “Taking direction from what the Supreme Court decided in
    Lawrence>/i> and Sell, we hold that DADT, after Lawrence, must
    satisfy an intermediate level of scrutiny under substantive due
    process …”

    It is well-established that assertion of violation of a fundamental right requires the highest level of strict scrutiny by the Courts. The 9th Circuit held that DADT at least must be subjected to an intermediate level of scrutiny.

    Reply
  • 204. Michguy  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    NEWS on the Witt vs Air Force case:

    On Monday, Sept. 13, the lesbian for whom the “Witt Standard” was named will be back in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington court as the decorated U.S. Air Force flight nurse continues to challenge her discharge under DADT. Witt is seeking re-instatement. The trial is expected to last seven days.

    http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/09/former-major-margaret-witts-dadt-trial-resumes-on-monday/

    Reply
    • 205. Bob  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:44 pm

      would it help or hurt this court case , if there was an outpouring of public support, in terms of visibility, like packed court room, people on the street,

      it would be really great to have live blogging to be in tune with what is going on???

      Or what other ways can the community, let her know we support her for what she is doing.

      Reply
      • 206. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm

        The Court is not influenced by public demonstrations of support. It seems to me that there should be some way to convey personally to Major Witt that we stand with her in this effort.

        Perhaps we can determine who her attorney is (are) and communicate through that office.

        Reply
      • 207. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm

        The address and phone number for her attorney’s office is listed at the bottom of the first page of the motion, in the bottom right corner.

        Reply
      • 208. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm

        Here are Major Witt’s attorneys of record:

        James E. Lobsenz, Carney Badley Spellman, P.S., Seattle,
        Washington Phone: 206 622-8020

        Aaron H. Caplan, , ACLU of Washington, Seattle, Washington
        ACLU phone (206) 624-2180

        Reply
      • 209. Bob  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        Ah!!! just as I thought, the court would not be influenced by a public outpouring of support, in terms of physical presence of community, but she would see and feel it, and so would we.

        If anyone is near to the area, and could be present,

        Also you’re right, letters to her attorney would reach her, wonder if he would allow simple e-mail, making it easier for more people to send support and gratitude for what she is doing.

        She is so bright in knowing her present call to duty, although it is not what she signed up for and loves, (nursng), her present call is to speak up for all those that can’t, she is situated in a unique way, in that she did not break the rules, but was outed, putting her in that situation.

        It takes a courageous person to bring awareness to her present situation, and what value it may be to others.

        Woot Woot to Witt.

        Reply
    • 210. Sheryl Carver  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:51 pm

      For those of us who have become addicted to reading court filings, here’s the link to the ACLU’s request for summary judgement in the Witt case, filed in July 2010. It’s long & so far I’ve only skimmed it, but it’s pretty interesting.

      http://tinyurl.com/29r7sod

      Reply
  • 211. John  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Everyone should be on the look out tomorrow as Lt Gov might file an appeal of Prop 8.

    Reply
    • 212. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      What is that ride at Disneyland, Somebody’s Mad teacup ride. That is what this case reminds me of. The conservative christian right is just trying everything, they are not giving up. The next few days are going to be quite interesting.

      Reply
      • 213. John  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        None of the LGBT community is very concerned about it and they really should be concerned.

        Reply
      • 214. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm

        The Mad Hatter’s Tea Cup Ride is the one you’re thinking of, Straight Grandmother.

        Reply
      • 215. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:13 pm

        @John I suspect there is a lot going on behind the sceens. Maybe Rick Jacobs is huddling with other GLBT leaders and he will post a topic here. Pure specualation- The GLBT leaders have not called any call to action that I am aware of, are you aware of anything? It could be that expert lawyers are telling them that no action is needed, it will never go through th courts once Ah-nold gets back. Or they all could just be scrambling trying to get information and a unified response going and they are still working on it. Who knows?

        The next 24 hours are going to be real intersting.

        I checked the Lt Gov twitter account and he has stopped twittering.

        Reply
      • 216. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        Depends which Disneyland you’re at, SG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Tea_Party

        This case also reminds me of the Tea Cup ride as it frequently makes me feel like throwing up.

        Reply
      • 217. John  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:38 pm

        Gays wake up and smell the coffee! Lt Gov could care two shits about us, we need to be ready.

        Reply
      • 218. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:52 pm

        John, we are concerned. There is not a whole lot we can DO about it at the present… so we are waiting to see what happens.

        Reply
  • 219. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    I think Pam’s House Blend has the easiest to understand and yet in depth report on Witt vs. Dept of the airforce.

    Maybe P8TT could ask if it could be re-printed here as a topic.

    Here is the link-
    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/15443/the-9th-circuit-the-witt-standard-and-that-more-humane-application-of-dadt

    Reply
  • 220. Paula  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    just further evidence that the president really doesn’t give a crap about LGBT issues.

    Reply
  • 221. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    @Sheryl Carver I am just starting to read the request for summary judgment, thanks for the link, but i would like to pause and just sincerely THANK Mr Lawrence who got up the courage to sue Texas!!!
    THANK YOU
    MR. LAWRENCE!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 222. Sheryl Carver  |  September 12, 2010 at 6:18 pm

      Mr. Lawrence does, in fact, deserve our sincere gratitude!

      Thanks for pointing that out, SG. I’ve got to go walk the dogs, then feed them, the goats, & shut up the chickens. But after that, I’m going to do some research on the web to learn more about Mr. Lawrence, then & hopefully now.

      Reply
  • 223. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Something that struck me as I watched the clip from Rachel Maddow again is that Major Almy was outed in the same way as CMPO Timothy McVeigh of the USNavy was outed–someone breaking into his private email. That was how MCPO McVeigh won his lawsuit and was reinstated into the Navy to finish out his term of service and gain a full 30-year retirement. The Navy was also ordered to issue back pay to MCPO McVeigh for the time between his discharge and his reinstatement, including all applicable raises due to length of service and COLA in place and increases in rank, as well as interest on that back pay. They also had to fully reinstate his benefits, including retirement, medical, and all other benefits, and when he retired, his discharge was honorable.

    Reply
    • 224. Rhie  |  September 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm

      That’s not the same TImothy McVeigh as the one who bomb the Oklahoma State Building is it?

      Reply
    • 226. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:49 am

      Ah. Good. Unfortunate name though.

      Heh well I think the appearance of most men is improved by dress blues :)

      Reply
  • 227. queerfaithnews  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    A great victory for GLBT Americans. A lot of faith leaders are supporting the repeal of DADT also: http://queerfaithnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/faith-leaders-speak-out-against-dont-ask-dont-tell/

    Reply
    • 228. Straight Grandmother  |  September 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      Great article, I like the first paragraph,

      “Harry Knox of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships praised the recent ruling that declared “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be unconstitutional by acknowledging the ruling as “a vindication of the tireless efforts of advocates over the last 17 years.” The recent decision includes an interesting twist which McNeill explains:”

      Reply
  • 229. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    As I recall, McVeigh was the Chief of Boat on a nuclear submarine who was outed by a person who recognized him from a posting he made on the internet. McVeigh never came out until after his retirement from the Navy.

    Reply
  • 230. Sheryl Carver  |  September 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Just sent an email to President Obama. I’m guessing it will have little effect, but maybe, just maybe, it will get counted in some metric that will get reported to somebody who may have some influence on what the President does.

    You have been weak, to say the least, in your support of equality for LGBT citizens, many of whom voted for you in the primaries & the general election, believing that you would fulfill your promise to be a “fierce advocate” for us. Mostly we’ve seen a lot of talk, without much meaningful action.

    Now you have a chance to do nothing while showing the support you promised us. Direct the DOJ to let Judge Phillips ruling on DADT stand. Do NOT appeal!

    This may be your last chance to avoid being remembered as the George Wallace of the 21st Century.

    Reply
    • 231. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:56 am

      Sheryl – I don’t know if this will improve your opinion about the President’s record on LGBT rights but I found this list on a friend’s blog of the things the President has done. It’s my opinion that he has done far more than people think – in general, and toward LGBT in particular. He is just awful at getting the word out.

      I tend to take the position that he has done a lot but needs to do more. I am fully in favor of holding his feet to the fire of his progressive base. I just want to give credit where it is due.

      http://neo-prodigy.livejournal.com/810068.html – this is the link to the journal. he has given me permission to repost.

      Here’s the list, compiled by openly gay DNC treasurer Andrew Tobias.

      1. Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

      2. Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

      3. Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees

      4. Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

      5. Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

      6. Released the first Presidential PRIDE proclamation since 2000

      7. Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history

      8. Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King

      9. Appointed the first transgender DNC member (Diego Sanchez) in history

      10. Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

      11. Committed to ensuring that HUD’s core housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity

      12. Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders — the nation’s first ever — funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE

      13. Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA

      14. Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history

      15. Supported lower taxes for same-sex couples who receive health benefits from employers

      15 more at the source.

      Reply
  • 232. chris84wa (Spokane, WA)  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    People care – and the LGBT movement is moving forward faster than ever! I think it was the lack of people in the right places letting people know what is really going on in the country!

    If there were a “Gay News Network” or something – I bet TONS more people would of noticed and followed. Imagine if this site weren’t here! How many people wouldn’t know (or care) what was going on in the country!

    Reply
    • 233. BK  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:14 am

      “How many people wouldn’t know (or care) what was going on in the country!”–chris84wa (Spokane, WA)

      Heheh I still would care, but wouldn’t know about *anything* minus what the news networks put out. (not much, as we can all see.)

      The P8TT family rocks! :)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

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