Read ’em, weep, laugh, and discuss: All 27 Prop 8 case amicus briefs filed in support of Appellants to the 9th Circuit

September 25, 2010 at 7:45 am 247 comments

by Eden James

The byline on this post should be “Kathleen Perrin,” actually.

On the last day that amicus briefs could be filed in support of the Appellents, the amazing Kathleen spent her Friday night uploading all of them to Scribd and posting them in the comments to last night’s breaking news on Maj. Margaret Witt. Then she compiled them all and emailed them to me, as well as posting them on the Prop 8 Trial Trackers page on Facebook.

So, with some further adieu, below is the list of all 26 27 amicus briefs submitted in support of Appellants to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is reviewing the Prop 8 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker. Amicus briefs for Plaintiffs will be due one week after plaintiffs’ answer brief is submitted. The due date for the plaintiffs’ answer brief is October 18.

You’ll notice a few of our, er, friends from the anti-equality crowd in the briefs. It’s a Who’s Who, from the National Organization for Marriage and NARTH to Concerned Women for America and the Pacific Justice Institute.

If folks are up for it, the community could crowdsource reading these briefs, for the benefit of all involved, following Alan E.’s lead on the FRC amicus brief. I know many of you already started diving in, as the voluminous 400-comments-and-counting Witt thread demonstrated, but if you would like go more in-depth, go ahead and divvy up the briefs in the comments, read them, analyze them and share your thoughts in the comments. Then we’ll post some of the most incisive commentary on the front page.

Jeremy Hooper got started on this one: 13 states, including Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming, filed a brief saying that Judge Walker “exceeded (his) judicial authority.”

UPDATE: NOM sent in a revised brief late last night and Kathleen just got it up on Scribd. She says the only differences she could find between the two documents is a revision on pg 33 (pdf pg 40), paragraph 1, and the inclusion of two pages in the replacement document not in the original: pdf pages 43 and 45, Certificates of Service and Compliance. If anyone finds additional differences, let her know:

View this document on Scribd

All 26 amicus briefs, including the one above, are in the extended entry. Just click…

AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS:

Robert Wooten (not a brief, just an alleged motion for permission to file one)

Margie Reilly

Family Research Council

Liberty Institute

View this document on Scribd

High Impact Leadership Coalition, et al

View this document on Scribd

Western Law Center for Law & Policy on behalf of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Desert Stream Ministries

The Ethics and Public Policy Center

Liberty Counsel, Campaign for Children and Families, and JONAH, Inc.

American Center for Law and Justice

The Hausvater Project

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al.,

Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson

NARTH (includes appellant Imperial County on cover page, though filed in Proponents’ case)

Pacific Justice Institute

States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming

American College of Pediatricians

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

National Legal Foundation

Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund

Concerned Women of America

National Organization for Marriage, NOM Rhode Island, and Family Leader

Paul McHugh, M.D., John Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor of Pyschiatry [sic]

Eugene Dong

American Civil Rights Union

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Appellants Imperial County

UPDATE: Here’s one more:

Catholics for the Common Good

View this document on Scribd

Entry filed under: Community/Meta, Right-wing, Statements, Trial analysis.

BREAKING: Judge orders Maj. Margaret Witt reinstated to Air Force FRC’s “Family Policy Council” affiliates to 9th Circuit: Just ignore the U.S. Constitution, mmmkay?

247 Comments Add your own

  • 1. OldCoastie  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Oh! the smell of panic!

    How perfectly entertaining!

    Reply
    • 2. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:24 am

      “I love the smell of panic in the morning.”

      Reply
      • 3. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:34 am

        “….smells like….victory.” :)

        Reply
    • 4. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:42 am

      Not just any panic… ancient, traditional panic! LMAO

      Reply
      • 5. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:54 am

        LOL Chris–maybe I’m just being dense, but you are aware that the origin of the word “panic” is the god Pan and the intense fear his primal, erotic presence would produce in those wandering in the woodlands?

        So very traditional panic indeed–reading these briefs, seems clear these appellants are panicking about sex sex sex (with a dollop of recursive panic at their own obsession with sex, if you ask me…..but I Am Not A Pyschiatrist)(sic)

        Reply
  • 6. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Although first here, I’m definitely late to this party… some of us in the east actually sleep… so I have absorbed all the comments, but not read any of the briefs yet. All the good ones are probably taken, but if someone want to assign me a couple while I’m reading, I’d be happy to comment.

    Reply
    • 7. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:56 am

      Ok, second. The offer still stands:)

      Reply
    • 8. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

      I guess I’m fourth.

      Reply
      • 9. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:10 am

        And HUGE KUDOS to Kathleen for doing all this!

        Reply
      • 10. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

        “And HUGE KUDOS to Kathleen for doing all this!”

        Absolutely. And to all who leapt on them and read and commented. I’m buying shares in Pepto Bismol… or maybe Gravol?

        Reply
      • 11. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

        Yes Kathleen, thank you!

        Reply
      • 12. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:48 am

        A great, big thank you to Kathleen for taking time to compile and post these, to Alan E for starting this ball rolling, and to everyone who tackles these animus curiae briefs for us lay folk! :)

        Reply
  • 13. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Article title should be “Read ’em, LAUGH, and discuss.”

    Reply
    • 14. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

      how about ‘Read ’em, weep from laughter, and discuss’?

      or, for some of these, ‘Read ’em, and weep from disgust’?

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
      • 15. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:23 am

        Kate and Andrew — refresh the post now :-)

        Reply
      • 16. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:28 am

        Good job, Eden!

        Reply
  • 17. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Eden, Kathleen, Ann, Elizabeth, LLB, Felyx, Cookie, Kate, Alan, and everybody who worked soo hard yesterday gathering and critiquing these briefs unto the weee hours last night —

    THANK YOU

    I would have drowned in the tidal wave of hatred in these amicusanimus briefs had it not been for your humor and courage and intestinal fortitude needed to cut the wheat from the chaff. I bow down to your awesomeness.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

    Reply
    • 18. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

      Oh Andrew, dear heart, I am honored to be placed in that group of prestigious Trackies ….. but I don’t belong there. My only contribution was trying to stay awake and read what others were saying during the influx.

      Humbly withdrawing from Andrew’s list of the esteemed,
      Kate

      Reply
      • 19. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

        Kate, we needed your sense of humor to keep going!

        Reply
      • 20. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

        I am with Kate on this one…perhaps my biggest contribution was furthering the confusion.

        Although I will admit it was fun.

        Reply
      • 21. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

        LLB — you made HUGE contributions. I found what you were saying very, very enlightening. You stay in Andrews list. It is Sooooooo Ordered.

        Reply
      • 22. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:58 am

        argh….. ON Andrew’s list, not in….

        Reply
      • 23. JonT  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        I second that emotion. And subscribing. Still haven’t read many of these – kinda busy this weekend, but I will try. I did read the one from PJI. It was… enlightening :)

        Reply
    • 24. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

      Some of them really are pretty amusing, Andrew. And the one devoted to sexual laws and practices of the ancient Greeks and Romans is actually pretty interesting, also comical when you consider that they think any of that has anything to do with marriage today.

      But you are most gracious, and I guess I should also say that you are welcome.

      Reply
      • 25. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

        The one about Greeks and Romans fails to mention that Jesus affirmed a gay couple’s relationship and value to the faith in Matthew 8:5-13. (using the Greek words “pais” and “entimos doulos” properly) http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

        Wonder why they keep leaving Jesus out?

        Reply
      • 26. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:05 am

        Tomato, they don’t want to refer to the Bible at all, lest they be accused of trying to base laws on their own religion. Which is exactly what they are trying to do, and they think that the Bible was originally written in modern English language.

        Reply
      • 27. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:34 am

        Yeah. I was being snarky… like any of the power-worshippers would actually READ what Jesus had to say before they start throwing their religiously fueled animus/amicus into the pot.

        By the way, who was it that said “English was good enough for Jesus, and it’s good enough for me and my children!” It was someone fighting second-language instruction in the public schools, but I can’t find the original.

        Reply
      • 28. Sheryl Carver  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:05 am

        @Tomato:

        Did a quick search; the statement is frequently attributed to Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, the 1st female governor of Texas (1924) & the 2nd female state governor in the US. The sites I checked stated there was no proof she actually said this, & the exact quotation varies, but it supposedly came up when she was objecting to teaching Spanish in Texas public schools.

        “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!”

        Reply
    • 29. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:37 am

      Andrew, you shouldn’t positively reinforce addictive behavior like staying up all night obsessively reading trashy briefs and refreshing comments threads. But thanks for the nod and anytime, buddy.

      Reply
    • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:42 am

      Oh thank you, Andrew! That was a really surreal, hysterically funny experience for me….as all the lame briefs were rolling in! It was good to face the tidal wave together. I laughed so hard! Especially about the group “The Corncerned Women of America,” which sounds like some watch-and-ward bookclub from the 1930’s (!) I can just see the flowered hats on them, with all the fake blossoms bobbing and quivering from indignation.

      Dear god……..

      Reply
      • 31. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:58 pm

        You aren’t too far off. They oppose all equal rights legislation for women, because women shouldn’t work anyway. They are the ones who have that stupid “Real Men Marry Women” sticker.

        *makes cat retching noises*

        And I agree, I couldn’t read all of this without everyone here to make fun of it with me

        Reply
      • 32. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:55 pm

        If I had more time, I’d infiltrate.

        Do they organize book burnings, too?

        Reply
  • 33. Michael Herman  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:32 am

    There was no abuse of judicial power. The words of Article 6 of the US Constitution are clear. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and all judges are bound by it.

    Judge Walker was legally bound to overturn Prop 8. He did his job.

    Reply
    • 34. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:47 am

      Hunh. But what good is article 6 of the Constitution when the “people” can just vote out judges who don’t rule the way they want them to?

      What’s happening in Iowa, and some other states as well, really really bothers me. I posted a link to a NYTimes article below.

      Reply
      • 35. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:03 am

        Federal judges are not subject to recall. Unfortunately, IMO, state court judges in many states are subject to recall.

        Reply
  • 36. Petr Tomeš  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:33 am

    The children need mother and father rebuttal:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iwNRF7Hid7l7a8dQ5uvT8AK2Q9HVEkGrV_EJ6qswamE

    Reply
  • 37. Don in Texas  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

    As I posted on the previous thread, all of these amicus briefs will be for naught if the 9th Circuit determines that the proponents do not have standing to appeal.

    And that’s the biggest laugh of them all!

    Reply
    • 38. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:41 am

      Even better is how much $$$ it cost them all.

      Reply
    • 39. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:47 am

      yes well, they will be ammunition for Olsen and Boies to show there was animus, if the 9th decides the proponents do have standing.

      in fact, it might even backfire for them. personally, I’ve long thought the 9th would rule with a narrow scope. these briefs might convince them otherwise.

      Reply
      • 40. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:50 am

        Hmmm, good point. Is it possible for Olsen & Boies to re-submit these very briefs when the time comes as ANIMUS briefs???? In the very words of our oppostion…….

        Reply
      • 41. Phil L  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:10 am

        That was more or less my reaction in the last thread. These should show the court that there are a ton of people who are trying to discriminate against us.

        I hope that the court sees that they need to step in for us because of this obvious animus.

        Reply
      • 42. Aaron  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:17 pm

        ok, IANAL, so could you expound on this. the amici (if my latin is correct, thats the plural?!?!)…for the proponets could actually be harmful to them??

        i like this thought, but have no idea how it works legally..

        Reply
  • 43. Mark M  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:38 am

    I’ll toss my thanks in there too! It was awesome to see so much collective effort….making all these briefs understandable to people like myself
    THANK YOU!!

    Big Furry Hugs
    Mark

    Reply
    • 44. Mark M  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:53 am

      UGH
      subbing……

      Reply
  • 45. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Then Catholics for the Common Good – at 3:13am – entered a motion to extend time to file at 8:30am on 9/27.

    Seems to me they shouldn’t be granted anything (they couldn’t even file the motion to extend on time).

    Reply
    • 46. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:40 am

      This should be interesting. “Their” side seems to be allowed all manner of extensions.

      Reply
    • 47. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:56 am

      Do you think Catholics for the Common Good will include Matthew 19:10-12 in their belated brief, where Jesus says some people are born gay, made that way by God? http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

      Hmmmm, I think not…

      Reply
      • 48. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:43 am

        ….or mention that Jesus was anti-marriage entirely? Not to mention he never married himself, unless you believe that “Last Temptation of Christ” novel or that Dan Brown fellow.

        Reply
      • 49. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:53 am

        He was definitely married. They called him “rabbi”

        Reply
      • 50. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:03 am

        Do you have to be married to be a rabbi? My sister-in-law isn’t, but of course she’s from a somewhat more liberal tradition.

        Reply
      • 51. Aaron  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        ok, i have degree in theology. this is a new one for me. i’ve studied quite a bit of this stuff. but i’m not sure this is as accurate as they say it is. but now i have something to take up my afternoon….dust of the the old greek texts.

        yes, i need a life…

        as for the “rabbi” thing. in hebrew, it means “teacher”….i am not aware of any connection to marital status.

        Reply
    • 52. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:56 am

      They will say that no one was harmed by the delay, and our side will not really be able to allege any harm so they probably won’t bother to oppose. At least, that’s what my Magic Eightball tells me.

      Reply
      • 53. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:01 am

        So our side would have to go to the trouble to oppose? I thought the court would just say yay or nay to the extension. (How much time have these dummies already had??)

        OH! There it is, our title for the book: “Perry v. Arnold for Dummies.”

        Reply
      • 54. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:09 am

        A court can say yay or nay on their own, I suppose, but if no one opposes it and they see no harm (and what harm is there, really, over a delay of 3 hours in the middle of the night?) then I think they are more likely to just allow it in.

        Reply
    • 55. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      Why would they need more time….to scrounge for arguments?

      Of course, we all know the Catholic Church has a cash flow problem. Maybe that’s a consideration. They have to sell some priceless art to afford a lawyer.

      Reply
    • 56. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      I LOVE the depth and breadth of expertise in this community.

      Reply
  • 57. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Thank you, Kathleen and Ann for your tireless efforts! A soap opera script writer couldn’t have pulled it together faster, and certainly not better!

    Off topic, but this disturbs me greatly:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/politics/25judges.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

    Is it going to be the way of things, that judges will be held hostage to public opinion, and rule against the law just to keep their jobs?

    Scary, scary, scary. I mean scary like I’m going to have nightmares scary. It reminds me too much of fascism; I still can’t watch films of the Holocaust without becoming nauseous.

    Reply
    • 58. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:46 am

      Joel, one should NEVER be able to watch films of the Holocaust without becoming nauseous. Anyone who can do that has lost their humanity. You are clearly human.

      Reply
      • 59. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:05 pm

        Agreed. I was shocked when I went to the Holocaust Museum on a school trip and half my class acted like it was no big deal. My friends and I were in tears half way through and had to walk out of the last few rooms without looking because it was just…too much.

        Reply
    • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:52 am

      That really doesn’t surprise me and has been building exponentially the last two months.

      Thanks Joel for that article link…

      And then there is Jeffrey Neary, a district judge in northwestern Iowa who eight years ago survived what he believes was the state’s first campaign aimed at removing a judge (for granting a divorce to a same-sex couple). Judge Neary said the experience made him more cautious about how he approached controversial cases. He is up for retention this year. “I don’t want judicial positions to be political positions,” he said. “If that happens I don’t want to be a judge.”

      I refuse to allow conservatives to blackmail and buy judges.

      Reply
      • 61. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:01 am

        They don’t want us to be married, but they leap all over a judge who grants an end to one of our marriages.

        Yeah, I like that logic. :)

        Reply
      • 62. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:12 am

        Tomato, every time I see your posting name, I smile. I should have signed up as Eggplant.

        Reply
      • 63. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:21 am

        “Tomato” = love apple, hot babe, member of the nightshade family, once considered poisonous – then considered to cause lasciviousness – now a standard and unremarkable part of everyday food.

        Seemed appropriate, somehow.

        Reply
      • 64. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:23 am

        Exactly LLB. That’s why judges shouldn’t be up for elections. When they are, they are held hostage to public opinion. And in states that allow for their judges to be up for re-election, what are you going to do?

        Reply
      • 65. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:23 am

        Definitely! As is eggplant a member of the nightshade family. (But not our own poster Nightshayde…..)

        Reply
    • 66. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:01 am

      Joel, you’re welcome.

      People have been trying to have judges ousted over their rulings for years. It happened to Chief Justice Rose Bird and two other CA Supreme Court justices in 1986 over perceived softness on death penalty cases. So it does happen.

      I’m not too worried about Iowa. Polling there shows that most Iowans are just fine with having marriage equality in their state.

      Reply
      • 67. Juli  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:28 am

        NOM was not able to buy an Iowa state senate seat with their stacks of money. Their many TV ads did not convince voters even in that rural area that “the gays” were a major threat. Maybe generations of caucuses have made Iowans aware of when they’re being bought. I hope they will see these “oust the corrupt judiciary” ads as more of the same.

        Reply
      • 68. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm

        I have my fingers crossed that Iowans will vote to retain. Don’t much care if it’s because they’re apathetic, and weren’t paying attention, or if they’re just principled. So want NOM to have spent all that money for nothing… like in DC.

        Reply
  • 69. Lawrence  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Sorry, but can you add the extra links to scribd? The embedded boxes don’t display on ins like iPads.

    The lesson I take from all this is that there are a lot of people out there determined to spend time and money trying to force their misguided personal and religious beliefs into laws that attack LGBT. Even if many of their arguments are stupid, this is no time for complacency. They will not go away, they will not be easily stopped. Equality must be won on all fronts. I think that has to include a Brown+Harris win in CA. Let’s ensure we are active in this election, not simply “disappointed”. There is a lot of money on the other side of equality.

    Reply
    • 70. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:48 am

      Agreed – they only want freedom of religion – and want to remove freedom from religion.

      Reply
    • 71. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:20 am

      Lawrence, you should be able to read them all here:

      http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

      That’s the Scribd account Kathleen set up.

      I’m on my iPhone now and I just went to the site and tested it. If you click on each brief, the mobile guide loads and gives you an option to download a copy of the file.

      Reply
    • 72. Layla  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:06 am

      Agreed. We have to get everyone to vote and not just be complacent because we are all so disappointed by the current state of things. The conservative R’s will intentionally screw us over while the D’s will just leave us by the roadside after breaking their promises to us. The way I see it it’s better to be neglected than intentionally abused.

      Reply
  • 73. John Culhane  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I’m a law professor who’s written about Robert George’s views on marriage on my own blog. I will take a look at the amicus brief he (and others) wrote and post my analysis and link.

    Reply
    • 74. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:53 am

      Many Thanks!

      Reply
    • 75. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:53 am

      Thank you! I’m sure I speak for us all when I say we’re really looking forward to another informed analysis!

      Reply
    • 76. Mark M  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:56 am

      Thank you John!!
      Welcome to the fun!

      Reply
    • 77. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:06 am

      Thank you, I will look forward to that.

      Reply
    • 78. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:09 am

      Excellent, Prof. Culhane!

      If you want, you can email your analysis to “prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT ORG.” I’ll take a look and pontentially post it.

      The same goes for everyone else, of course. If you want to take the time to write an in-depth analysis of a particular brief, similar to what Alan E. did, we’ll consider posting it on the front page.

      Reply
      • 79. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:14 am

        Er, potentially not “pontentially.” Believe it or not, that was iPhone auto-complete, though I do bear responsibility for allowing it to… complete. I feel like a typo machine lately, after the “Alen” post yesterday.

        Reply
      • 80. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:15 am

        We love you anyway, Eden.

        Reply
    • 81. Alan E.  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:11 am

      Yay true legal beagles! Many of us are just speculating, but with most of these, it’s just too easy.

      Reply
    • 82. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:16 am

      Do you mind sharing the URL for your blog?

      Reply
      • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:24 am

        You can just click on John’s name above his post.

        Reply
    • 84. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:57 am

      Yes, please do.

      Reply
    • 85. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:04 pm

      “I’m a law professor who’s written about Robert George’s views on marriage on my own blog. I will take a look at the amicus brief he (and others) wrote and post my analysis and link..”

      Yay! Mille gras (sp?)

      Reply
  • 86. OldCoastie  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Doesn’t it seem like all these briefs rather prove that the law was passed out of animus rather than some weird form of “protecting marriage”?

    Reply
    • 87. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:19 am

      I am definitely beginning to believe that the more they blather, the more they help us.

      Reply
    • 88. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:59 am

      Indeed, I have started thinking of them as “animus” briefs, rather than “amicus” briefs.

      Interesting, too, that my spell check doesn’t see anything wrong with “animus” but it doesn’t like “amicus.” Coincidence? I think not!

      Reply
      • 89. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:01 am

        Spell-checkers hate legal terms, unless you buy the special package with the legal dictionary.

        ::sigh::

        Reply
      • 90. icapricorn  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:43 am

        That’s brilliant, Joel. Animus briefs. That will become part of my Prop 8 vocabulary. YOU NAILED IT, Bro.

        Reply
    • 91. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm

      The Catholic Bishops brief has, thus far, hammered home the point that they don’t hate homosexuals, they ♥♥♥LEERRVVEE ♥♥♥ homosexuals, even though they think what they do is an abomination and they should never be allowed to have sex and that letting them marry will somehow taint the Church’s presumptive and exclusive right to define what marriage is. So it’s not animus, right? As long as you say you ♥♥♥ LEERRVVEE ♥♥♥ the sinner but not the sin.

      Frankly, I’d like to see someone demonstrate that in court: how you can love somebody while decrying a quality that is an essential part of them, and how that gives you the right to deprive them of secular rights.

      Reply
      • 92. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        This directly from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: (can we use this?)

        Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers
        A Statement of the Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family

        The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8).

        In light of this possibility, therefore, it seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a deep-seated dimension of one’s personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person. A homosexual orientation produces a stronger emotional and sexual attraction toward individuals of the same sex, rather than toward those of the opposite sex. It does not totally rule out interest in, care for, and attraction toward members of the opposite sex. Having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activity.

        There seems to be no single cause of a homosexual orientation. A common opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors—genetic, hormonal, psychological—that may give rise to it. Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.

        Always: http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml

        Reply
      • 93. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:11 pm

        @LLB

        I couldn’t quite make myself finish the whole thing, but…

        Never thought about this before, but in the Catholic Church, when does a child become an adult. This whole treatise is aimed at the poor parents who must take responsibility for how their ‘adolescent or adult child’ deals with their sexual orientation. Where is the pastoral message addressed to the damned child? “You’re ok and we all love you, and we’re going to get you counseling and help so that you can overcome your abhorrent, but possibly natural desires and live a chaste life”?????

        I am a lapsed Catholic who made the decision to leave the Church all on my own for my own reasons when I was 14. Were my parents supposed to be managing me through my ‘struggles’ (I don’t recall being particularly undecided or conflicted at the time)?

        And what’s with the doublespeak…. “Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.” But the person so afflicted should still seek help so that maybe they can be saved, or at least lead a chaste life to avoid the non-sin of being who they are… or something?

        Reply
      • 94. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:39 pm

        Sagesse —

        They are drawing a distinction between desire and action. If a person desires the same sex but doesn’t act on it they are free from sin. To be blunt, they are likening SSA to a desire for gambling or alcohol or some other addiction or wrong desire. Something twisted that should be fought. Sick, on their part, really.

        Reply
  • 95. Bruce  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:37 am

    I’m so ashamed of my state right now. Under its previous governor and attorney general, Virginia would never have joined in with this follow-the-leader animus brief. Under McDonnell and Cuccinelli, though, there’s no telling how crazy the government of our normally relatively sane state can become. Ugh. It really sickens me.

    Reply
  • 96. Cat  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I’m reading the brief filed by the American College of Pediatricians. Channeling procreation is mentioned on page 4… (shudder). It’s a blatant attempt to introduce new evidence without being subject to cross-examination. They attempt to discredit all evidence introduced by the plaintiffs. They also spend a lot of text on proving that stepfathers are more likely to be violent, obviously trying to prove by proxy that the non-biological parent (and hence stepfather) of a gay couple is more likely to be violent. That’s an unacceptable leap, which won’t stand up to the scientific standards they attempt to use when discrediting the plaintiff’s evidence.

    From Wikipedia:
    Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D, Director of the National Institutes of Health, NIH, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, made the following statement regarding the American College of Pediatricians on April 15, 2010:

    “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

    I guess that sums up how the American College of Pediatricians operates, and what their brief is about.

    Reply
    • 97. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:04 am

      Cat, can you quickly get a job clerking for one of these 9th judges? I want them to be sure to see your Wikipedia response by the author being misquoted.

      Reply
      • 98. Cat  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:16 am

        Sure! Where do I sign up?

        Reply
      • 99. Cat  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:46 am

        Actually, I hope that the legal team of the plaintiffs read this website! As an example: Pamela Jones started he website groklaw.net, which was a great help for the defense team in SCO v. IBM. Allegations about copyright infringements in Linux and other distortions of the truth were very quickly countered with evidence, because of the many Linux geeks who read groklaw.net. As they say in the open-source software community: many eyes make all bugs shallow.

        Reply
    • 100. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      “They also spend a lot of text on proving that stepfathers are more likely to be violent, obviously trying to prove by proxy that the non-biological parent (and hence stepfather) of a gay couple is more likely to be violent. “

      Let’s hope one of the judges is a stepparent, or was raised by one. The’ll be like, “What the hellllllll…???”

      Reply
    • 101. Aaron  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm

      another legal question. Can’t the American college of Pediatricians be sued for this? They are not an actual medical organization and they are deliberately trying to CONFUSE and DECEIVE people. Can the American Academy of Pediatrics sue them? Or someone else? Maybe Dr Collins because of how they use his information?

      Reply
    • 102. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:28 am

      Statement from NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in Response to the American College of Pediatricians
      “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”
      Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director
      http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm

      Minneapolis paper profiles doctor who refuted bogus pediatrician group
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/25/22997

      Researcher Denounces “American College of Pediatricians” Bogus Report
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/12/21791

      Bogus “American College of Pediatricians” distributes deliberately fraudulent anti-gay propaganda to schools
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/05/21620

      On or around March 31, 2010, school superintendents may have received another letter from the American College of Pediatricians, which is in no way affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics. The letter promotes another campaign titled “Facts About Youth,” which professes to offer guidance to educators on “approaches to students experiencing sexual orientation and gender identity confusion.” Their campaign does not acknowledge the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education.
      http://www.aap.org/featured/sexualorientation.htm
      http://www.aap.org/featured/sexualorientation.htm

      Reply
    • 103. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:29 am

      Statement from NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in Response to the American College of Pediatricians
      “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”
      Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director
      http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm

      Reply
    • 104. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:29 am

      Minneapolis paper profiles doctor who refuted bogus pediatrician group
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/25/22997

      Reply
    • 105. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:30 am

      Researcher Denounces “American College of Pediatricians” Bogus Report
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/12/21791

      Reply
    • 106. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:31 am

      Bogus “American College of Pediatricians” distributes deliberately fraudulent anti-gay propaganda to schools
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/05/21620

      Reply
    • 107. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:31 am

      On or around March 31, 2010, school superintendents may have received another letter from the American College of Pediatricians, which is in no way affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics. The letter promotes another campaign titled “Facts About Youth,” which professes to offer guidance to educators on “approaches to students experiencing sexual orientation and gender identity confusion.” Their campaign does not acknowledge the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education.
      http://www.aap.org/featured/sexualorientation.htm

      Reply
    • 108. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:37 am

      The American College of Pediatricians, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be ”dangerously irresponsible” to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
      That pediatric study asserted a ”considerable body of professional evidence” that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.
      The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.
      Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.
      For example, Cameron’s Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.
      http://web.archive.org/web/20060612205656/www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/?page=full

      Reply
    • 109. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:47 am

      A group of approximately 60 of AAP’s more than 60,000 members opposed AAP’s adoption of a policy supporting the legal adoption of children by same-sex parents and recommenting that pediatricians “advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex parents through the judicial system, legislation, and community education.” and in dissent, formed the “American College of Pediatricians” (“ACP”) in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondets in keeping with the ACP’s position that “it is inappropriate, potentiall hazardeous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster case, or by reproductive manipulation.” Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP’s charter members, has described the ACP as a group “with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group’s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” This small faction’s views are out of step with research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities.
      http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf

      Reply
    • 110. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:58 am

      The part of ACP brief rest on Walter Schumm work. But:

      Although Dr. Schumm is not a psychologist, a summary of his testimony is included in this section because he conducted a methodological analysis of the works of psychologists on homosexual parenting. When reanalyzing studies on outcomes of children raised by gay parents, he found some differences in outcomes as a factor of parental sexual orientation where the original
      researchers reported no differences (the null hypothesis).
      He suggests that his reanalysis, mostly unpublished,
      should be accepted over the analyses of well respected
      researchers in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Schumm
      admitted that he applies statistical standards that depart
      from conventions in the field. In fact, Dr. Cochran and
      Dr. Lamb testified that Dr. Schumm’s statistical reanalysis contained a number of fundamental errors. Dr. Schumm ultimately concluded that based on his reanalysis of the data, there are statistically significant
      differences between children of gay and lesbian parents
      as compared to children of heterosexual parents. Dr.
      Schumm understands that much of the scientific community disagrees with his conclusions and concedes to the possibility that some gay parents may be beneficial to some children.
      The trial court was entitled to accept the testimony of Dr. Cochran and Dr. Lamb that Dr. Schumm’s statistical re-analyses contained fundamental statistical errors.
      http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf

      Reply
  • 111. Alan E.  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Crying! I want to read them all!

    Reply
    • 112. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:05 am

      Dig in, Alan. The more shredding, the better.

      Reply
    • 113. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:05 am

      Some of them do go pretty quickly. The one by Eugene Dong is mercifully short (and kind of hilarious). Margie Reilly’s is short, and maybe even funnier.

      Reply
      • 114. icapricorn  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:48 am

        Is that really somebody’s name — Eugene Dong. Hello! Very upset is he about them “homosexuals.” Gotta go, need to make a call to Jon Stewart.

        Reply
  • 115. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:07 am

    So many briefs…so little time…..that’s what he said….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 116. truthspew  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:16 am

    More bovine effluent from the bigots. I don’t even need to read to know what they’re going to throw up as arguments in support of the appeal.

    Problem is, none of them have standing to appeal. Not a one. They are intervenors, not parties of the original case. So I suspect their ‘evidence’ will get tossed.

    Reply
  • 117. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:31 am

    I just have to say, my absolute favorite misspelling is on the cover page of Dr. McHugh’s brief, in which he claims the title of “John Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor of Pyschiatry”

    (although a close second is the misspelling of the word errors as “ERRORES” in one of the titles — and can’t remember now which brief it’s in)

    Reply
    • 118. icapricorn  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:52 am

      Who filed these thing? Orly Taitz?

      Reply
  • 119. Alan E.  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I have so much to do today. I promise a write-up of at least one (preferably NOM, but if someone wants to assign me one, that’s ok). I won’t be able to get to reading them until tomorrow, so you kids have fun!

    Reply
  • 120. Cat  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:33 am

    I quickly scanned through the brief filed by the American Civil Rights Union. Too much legalese and case references for me… IANAL. However, the jest of their brief are two words: “tradition” and “narrow”. According to them, fundamental rights must be deeply based on tradition, and be defined as narrowly as possible.

    They even dare to state the miscegenation laws cannot be compared to banning marriage of equal-sex couples, because the former deals with traditional opposite-sex couples. They conveniently omit that it was tradition not to mix races in marriage, the same “tradition” argument they are using now.

    Their use of “narrow” is of course meant to apply in such a way that marriage is only a fundamental right for opposite-sex couples. However, fundamental rights are not narrow in all their aspects. On the contrary, fundamental rights apply broadly, in that they may not be denied to groups of people without a very good reason. It seems that the trail already covered all this, and I don’t see how this brief is going to change the conclusion that there is no good reason to exclude gay couples from marrying, and that the tradition of this exclusion in the US is not a sufficient excuse to prolong the situation.

    Reply
    • 121. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      Is it just me, or are these hate groups deliberately named to read at first glance like the real organizations? American College of Pediatrics vs American Academy of Pediatrics; American Civil Rights Union vs American Civil Liberties Union…

      Reply
      • 122. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm

        It’s not just you.

        Reply
      • 123. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm

        I agree. :)

        Reply
      • 124. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:48 am

        The American College of Pediatricians, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be ”dangerously irresponsible” to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
        That pediatric study asserted a ”considerable body of professional evidence” that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.
        The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.
        Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control.
        For example, Cameron’s Family Research Institute, with an annual budget of less than $200,000, tries to counter the views of the 150,000-member American Psychological Association, which has an annual budget of $98 million. The tiny American College of Pediatricians has a single employee, yet it has been quoted as a counterpoint to the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.
        http://web.archive.org/web/20060612205656/www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/?page=full

        Reply
      • 125. Rhie  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        Oh I know why the exist, thanks for the link :)

        It’s incredibly confusing. I’ve run into otherwise informed and intelligent people who don’t know the difference between the American College of Pediatrics and American Academy and mistakenly quote the first as the authority. I suppose that’s the point.

        If we’ve learned nothing from this whole Prop8 fight it’s that campaigns that run confusing and authoritative sounding BS are incredibly effective.

        How does the truth side fight that? We aren’t willing to lie, cheat, scare or steal and that really does put us at a disadvantage. One based on moral right, but still. How do we turn out logic and facts into the emotional bumper sticker phrases that most people listen to?

        Personally, I thought the Don’t Divorce My Parents campaign was effective. At least, it did lead to the ruling that the 18,000 marriages were valid. I believe it started to change the tide of feeling, too.

        Reply
      • 126. Alan E.  |  September 26, 2010 at 5:22 pm

        ACP had even sent out letters to teachers and schools about how to “deal with” gay kids in class. The title makes them seem to have prestige and standing, because they know that not many people receiving the letter will bother to look up the name. It’s close enough that people’s memory will trick them to think its the real deal. These groups were not created on a whim, but after careful thought and planning from the same types who pull bait and switch through religious means.

        Reply
  • 127. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Jeez, folks,I just sharpended my chains, and I’m supposed to be cutting more firewood. But this is SO much more fun! I’m going to blame it on all of you when I am cold this winter.

    Reply
    • 128. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:59 am

      sharpened

      Reply
    • 129. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:02 am

      If you just burn all these amicus briefs, I’m sure you’ll be warm all winter long! Make sure the flue is open though; the smoke is bound to be a little odorous…

      Reply
      • 130. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:04 am

        Perfect, Joel! And think of all the methane they’d produce.

        Reply
  • 131. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:02 am

    How ’bout setting up our own Amicus Awards — you know, best misspelling (with runners-up), etc. Fun!

    Reply
    • 132. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:05 am

      ANIMUS awards, I think….what should the statuette look like, I wonder? A pair of briefs?

      Reply
      • 133. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:06 am

        A pile of briefs, more like it.

        Reply
      • 134. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:11 am

        That’s what I meant. I, too, am getting so confused because their content is so ANIMUS for us even though they’re trying to produce AMICUS one. And I think your Underoos concept is perfect.

        Reply
      • 135. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:12 am

        And include Depends on the statue, for all the function-loosening laughter we’ve had at their expense.

        Reply
      • 136. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:35 am

        How about just a big, bronze horse’s ass? With the tail raised.

        Reply
      • 137. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:53 am

        Award for trashiest Brief….is a g-string statue….& goes to NARTH in honor of George “Rent a Boy” Rekers

        Reply
      • 138. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:58 am

        Oh I dunno Ronnie–I think the trashiest one was PJI’s Cavalcade of Greek Sexual Practices, including the citation about beautiful boys being useful for sex.

        Perhaps the G Rekers Award should go to the first person among these amici to come out (or be raunchily exposed) as gay, since you KNOW that at least ONE of them will be outed within, say, the next year or so…..

        Reply
  • 139. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:22 am

    That’s a convenient list. At this rate I’m going to be having nightmares about poorly thought out amicus briefs.

    Just subbing for now, I’ll get a glass of iced tea and start reading.

    Reply
  • 140. fern  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Judge Walker was biased, he didn’t consider the expert witnesses the defendants brought to court.
    I can only think of this motto “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.

    Now my understanding is that if prop8 is not overturned it will have to go to SCOTUS and a chance for SSM in the entire U.S. of A, whereas if it is overturned SSm will be restricted to California.

    If my understanding is wrong please let me know – thanks.

    Reply
    • 141. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm

      If Prop 8 is overturned, and if the proponents or Imperial County have standing and appeal, it will go to the SCOTUS (if they decide to accept it, which it seems likely that they would). If they do not have standing, then the likely result is that Judge Walker’s ruling stands and only California will have marriage equality for now.

      If Prop 8 is upheld, Boies and Olsen will appeal to the SCOTUS, which may or may not decide to take it. They may be just as happy to wait a few years to decide the issue of marriage equality in the US.

      Reply
    • 142. icapricorn  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      Technically, you may be right. However, if so enormous and populace a state as California has marriage equality it will effect the economies of the states around it. Employment may be struggling now, but some day our country will be flush again, and corporations will be bidding for the smartest and the most efficient. Are major corporations going to put their headquarters in a state where employees will lose their marriage rights or will they want the most unproblematic environment for attracting new hires. That’s an argument even Republicans will understand — particularly Republicans.

      Reply
      • 143. icapricorn  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:11 pm

        Of course, I meant: so “populous” a state as California.

        Reply
    • 144. Michael Ejercito  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      If the Ninth Circuit affirms, it will be binding as a matter of precedent on the entire Ninth Circuit.

      Idaho has a special interest in filing an amicus brief, as the Federal District of Idaho (which would hear federal law claims against Idaho’s officials) is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent.

      Reply
      • 145. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:19 pm

        Okay….that’s somehing I still don’t grasp. If the proponants are ruled to have no standing by the 9th Circuit, does that body have the right to uphold Walker’s decision (if they agree with it) so it is binding for all the states in the 9th Circuit?

        Or if it’s found there’s no standing to appeal there, does it mean the decision is kept at it’s current level (California) ?

        I’m asking, Can a further decision be made by the 9th Circuit that takes Walker’s ruling up to their level, even if they deem there’s no one there in court with the right to argue the proponant’s side?

        Reply
      • 146. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm

        Cookie, if the 9th finds that no one has standing then they will not rule on the merits of the appeal, and it will apply only to California. Only if they rule on the merits would it apply to the entire 9th Circuit.

        (The ruling as to who has standing would apply throughout the 9th, for what that’s worth.)

        Reply
      • 147. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        Oh hey, it’s Michael Ejercito! You never answered my question the other day, probably had things to do. I’ll ask again here for your convenience.

        We were discussing whether Judge Walkers decision should affect only the plaintiffs or not, you may recall. So why would the state continue to enforce a law that’s been found in court to violate the constitution? What reason is there to keep it?

        And remember, I’m not a lawyer and I’m kinda stupid, so please use simple terms and try to avoid citing legal precedent. Thanks!

        Reply
      • 148. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        For those who may not know, please keep in mind that Michael Ejercito’s profession is selling real estate. He came on the board previously and posted a lot of authoritative sounding legal mumbo-jumbo. Thankfully, USC Law Professor David B. Cruz came on the board to counter (or at least put in proper context) Mr Ejercito’s uninformed comments. Unfortunately, we will likely not have the time to do this often.

        My point is to take what Mr. Ejercito says with a GIANT grain of salt–as in, basically it’s best to ignore what he has to say.

        Reply
      • 149. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:43 pm

        @Ann S

        “Cookie, if the 9th finds that no one has standing then they will not rule on the merits of the appeal…”

        Is it not possible that the 9th Circuit could rule that no one has standing, but give their opinion on the merits as well. That way, if standing is appealed to the Supreme Court and granted there, then SCOTUS could also take up the merits? Otherwise, it would have to be sent back to the 9th to rule on the merits…. Someone needs a dance card….

        Reply
      • 150. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:43 pm

        That was meant to read, “Unfortunately, he will likely not have the time to do this often.” “he” meaning Prof. Cruz.

        Reply
      • 151. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        Sagesse, it’s possible but not likely, and any such ruling would not be binding because it would be what lawyers like to call “mere dicta”. (There never seems to be just “dicta”, only “mere dicta”.) “Dicta” is something the court said but is not necessary to their ruling and so is not binding.

        Reply
      • 152. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:48 pm

        I knew that name looked familiar….shu…shu.. ; ) …Ronnie

        Reply
      • 153. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:18 pm

        @Ann S

        I didn’t use the word ‘dicta’ because I wasn’t sure if it applied here, but sometime the courts seem to ‘decide not to decide’ (the Arizona standing case, for instance), and yet comment on arguments anyway. This is how you can tell IANAL:).

        Reply
      • 154. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:42 pm

        Cookie, you’re right that the Arizonans for Official English case contains a lot of dicta that the court just decided to opine about even though it wasn’t necessary to the disposition of the case.

        If the 9th Circuit does something similar, such as holding that neither the proponents nor Imperial County has standing but still offer their opinion about what they would have ruled — it won’t be binding but it will certainly be of great interest to all of the 9th Circuit district courts.

        Arizonans for Official English was a unanimous decision, and so is viewed as indicative of how the entire Court was thinking on the issue covered. If the court views it differently when presented with a case where they are required to decide this very question, they will then call all that language in Arizonans for Official English “mere dicta”.

        Reply
      • 155. Anna Bryan  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:48 pm

        And so does Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, etc. However, they didn’t file briefs.

        Welcome Michael Ejercito everyone! He is better known for posting misguided, prejudiced, and anti-gay posts on the Volokh Conspiracy website.

        BTW, he is not a lawyer.

        Reply
      • 156. Anna Bryan  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:10 pm

        Seriously… You can’t trust anything Michael Ejercito says. I mean, he still uses MySpace for god’s sake.

        Reply
      • 157. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        Sagesse, as Ann said, while it’s possible, it’s unlikely that the 9th will say much, if anything, on the merits if it’s determined no party has standing to appeal. There are so many ways this could go, that it’s hard to draw out all the possible paths, but here’s one possible scenario:

        The 9th Circuit has all the evidence and conducts oral arguments on both issues — standing and the merits of the appeal. Then it issues a ruling that neither the Proponents nor Imperial County have standing to appeal (mentioning nothing about the merits). Following that decision, Proponents and/or IC appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of standing. If the Supreme Court decides to weigh in and reversed the 9th on the issue of standing, the case would back to the 9th to issue a ruling on the merits. However, the 9th already has everything they need to make that decision, having already reviewed the trial record, briefs and oral arguments. All they would have to do is write the decision on the merits, without an additional hearing or other information.

        Reply
      • 158. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm

        I guess I am confused. What do these briefs do then – since no new evidence can be entered.

        Reply
      • 159. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:17 pm

        Thanks, Ann.

        That’s what I originally thought…but then the points of the appeal get muddled in my head.

        So while we can’t get complacent, it would appear (seeing as the proponants lamely dodged this very issue in their brief, which all these other freaks are now dogpiling onto with their Amicus Curiaes) that there’s no likely way the 9th is going to find the wannabe appelants have standing. Therefor, the decision will stay in California.

        I think the more likely threat is how the partisanally (new word?) mixed U.S. Supreme Court will view the wannabe appelants’ appeal on that, as they made that strange decision about corporations having rights to politically campaign for their financial interests not too long ago. That was kind of out of left field! As we’ve seen, these Religious Reich Wingers (some of whom sit on SCOTUS?) don’t seem so finicky about following established order. I hope the Pugs on that bench don’t try to reinvent law to grant standing, so they can singlemindedly maul Walker’s decision.

        But perhaps I’m overcaffeinated today….

        Reply
      • 160. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm

        LLB, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on amici curiae and the role of amicus briefs. Amici are not parties to the lawsuit, nor are they intervenors. They are merely meant to offer additional information to ‘help’ the court in its decision. In simple terms, it’s not new evidence, just a way of shedding light on other perspectives that may not be represented by the parties themselves.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

        Reply
      • 161. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:14 pm

        Cookie, you said, “there’s no likely way the 9th is going to find the wannabe appellants have standing”. I hope so, but I don’t think it’s quite as certain as you have phrased it here.

        As to SCOTUS and “that strange decision about corporations having rights to politically campaign for their financial interests not too long ago”, I’m not convinced that that is quite so out of the blue as it is popularly made out to be. For one thing, remember that the ACLU supports this decision as allowing more free speech.

        “I hope the Pugs on that bench don’t try to reinvent law to grant standing, so they can singlemindedly maul Walker’s decision.” They will no doubt be mindful when they make any decision on standing that it will go both ways, and hopefully will remember that they generally prefer to limit standing.

        Reply
  • 162. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Has anyone here actually found a single thing new in all of this garbage? I mean “new” in the sense that it could actually help Them, not “new” as in bringing in the Greeks and Romans. (My favorite part of that supposed arguement was saying that Sappho had a child, so she couldn’t have possibly been a lesbian. I do wonder if They would also deny that she was a Lesbian, as in a resident of the island of Lesbos. I should go back to see if They capitalized it.)

    Reply
  • 163. Ed  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Ok, here’s my input….I love to listen to right wing christian radio (My bf wonders how the hell i get through it all and not get raging mad…..it is to me, a form of entertainment, but i digress…). Anyway, on this guys radio show, the host, Irvin Baxter, is so against anything gay (and this show was about the possible repeal of DADT). It was at the beginning of the week. Well, all of the people who called in were against the repeal, as well as being against the (cue thunder) homosexual lifestyle. Towards the end of the hour, around the 53 min mark, this one caller gets through, (from Louisiana), and just starts tearing into the host (he was, obviously, pro gay), saying the host (baxter) was cherry picking the bible, etc etc. Anyway, Baxter cuts him off, saying that this was a religious show, and to be considerate of that fact. Baxter goes on to say to his listeners, that he is totally in favor of the 1st amendment (free speech) as long as it doesn’t interfere with his message. Hypocrisy much?
    Anyway, if anyone else wants to listen, his website is
    Endtime dot com
    then you would have to look for his archived audio broadcasts.
    Just thought I would throw that out to you guys and girls, I will now return you to your previously scheduled programming.

    Reply
  • 164. Linda  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    I have so much admiration for all of you folks who can read through all this stuff and actually make sense out of it all. I just can’t manage it; my stomach just won’t tolerate it. And frankly, it just hurts my heart to come face to face with such blatant hatred.

    Kudos to you who have the fortitude to wade through all of this and respond.

    Reply
  • 165. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    So in reading Margie Reilly’s brief, the most important thing I noticed was that I should have conditioned my hair this morning. That sounds cruel, I know.

    The document seems very…confused. If Margie were to demand a refund from James Joseph Lynch, Jr. for his work on this paper I think I’d be on her side.

    I’m don’t generally feel very competent in matter of legal procedure, or the nuances of interpretation of the law, but in this instance I actually feel like I’ve understood Judge Walker’s decision better than this lawyer. I mean, at least I understand which side he decided in favor of.

    Reply
    • 166. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm

      Margie Reilly and her lawyer were very confused, and yes, you have a better grip on what’s going on than either of them.

      Reply
      • 167. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:55 pm

        Thank you, Ann. It’s always nice to be reassured that I’m not the crazy one. :)

        Reply
  • 168. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    UPDATE: NOM et al submitted a revised brief:

    Amicus brief by NOM et al. REPLACES CA9DOC 68.

    NOTE: The only apparent differences between the 2 documents is a revision on p 33 (pdf 40), paragraph 1, and inclusion of two pages in the revised document not in the original: pdf pp 43, 45, Certificates of Service and Compliance. If anyone else notes additional differences, please let me know. Thanks!

    Reply
  • […] 25, 2010 (We’ll be putting up some analysis posts on the 26 amicus briefs filed in the last week — mostly last night — by the Appellants to the 9th Circuit. […]

    Reply
  • 170. Sven  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    So I was reading part of the NARTH brief. In the beginning of the brief they state NARTH is a “professional, scientific, organization.” Then hardly two pages under that you can find this paragraph.

    “While no published study has sought a random population from which to assess treatment success rates for clients seeking to change their unwanted
    homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential, such treatment has been widely documented in the literature since the late 19th century. Clinicians and researchers who have used or investigated a variety of reorientation approaches have reported positive outcomes.”

    Now I know it’s been a while since I learned about the Scientific Method, but isn’t random sampling and having a control group a key factor in a proper experiment. And after all, what they are doing to these people is a horrific experiment. I can not think of any credible scientific journal that would publish a study who’s finding rely on the researcher saying “it works because I said so.” I really hope the court sees these documents for what they are, a bunch of bologna. I’m not even going to touch on the fact the entire brief basically states we don’t really have to be gay.

    Reply
    • 171. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:50 pm

      Yeah, I took a quick look at that one, and the entire thing is filled with self-reported great results of supposed therapists doing unethical “treatments” and reporting that “my treatment works great for these people!” Bologna is too nice a word for what this is.

      Reply
      • 172. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm

        If NARTH is so “scientific” and has such a great track record, then why did not the proponents bring them in as expert witnesses during the initial trial? I would hope that this fact would be seen by the 9th Circuit for what it is: they had Nuthing (to quote Rob)!

        Reply
      • 173. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        NARTH is one of those famous things that Dr. Tam “saw on the internet”. So there’s that, at least. They were there in spirit?

        Reply
      • 174. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:08 pm

        Oh, yeah, GREAT RESULTS for George Rekers, NARTH founder!

        This is the same lovely group of folks who cautioned parents to watch their lefthanded children for early signs of homosexuality, since lefties are twice as likely to be gay as righties.

        Reply
    • 175. Sven  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:29 pm

      I laugh when they throw out numbers like 50% of all lesbians this one author knew had all been heterosexual at one time. I’m sorry but if I put that into one of my school papers as evidence for a finding I would fail the class. And these people are trying to submit this to the 9th circut.

      Reply
      • 176. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:48 pm

        Yes.

        It’s kind of on a par with all their “everybody KNOWS that….” @ssertions.

        Reply
    • 177. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:50 am

      In 2009 the American Psychological Association stated:
      “There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether recent sexual orientation change efforts do work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Those efforts has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation. Some individuals and groups have promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that sexual orientation change efforts, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors. Many of these individuals and groups appeared to be embedded within the larger context of conservative religious political movements that have supported the stigmatization of homosexuality on political or religious grounds.”

      No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
      The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_&_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organizations_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts

      Reply
    • 178. Petr Tomeš  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:52 am

      When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare.
      Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon.
      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

      Reply
    • 179. icapricorn  |  September 26, 2010 at 11:07 am

      NARTH is dead dinosaur that no judge has taken seriously for at least 20 years. This Christian therapy organization was condemned by both the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists as both unscientific and harmful to its clients. NARTH’S presence here in this garden of animus curiae actually damages the proponents by highlighting the lack of foundation for their feverish rationales.

      Reply
  • 180. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Reading the one from the Catholic Bishops et al: while it is well-written (hmm, perhaps there’s a Jesuit in the crowd?) it alleges that holding Prop 8 unconstitutional “distorted” their religious beliefs. Whaaa?

    It’s also quite up-front in its descriptions of the contributing groups and how they see their chief mission as imposing their religious beliefs on American law (and indeed, the entire world.) Dominionism explained by someone with a college education, at last!

    Oh, excuse me, that can’t be so, people with educations are “elites,” and “elites” are the ones who favor marriage equality. This is just someone with a really good spellchecker. GOT IT.

    Is this the beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse? Me wonderz.

    Reply
  • 181. José Merentes  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    This is a naive question, but how to bulk the assertions by the Imperial county on the suspect classification subject? (“sexual orientation is not a suspect class”).

    Reply
    • 182. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:14 pm

      This is still an open question as far as the US Supreme Court. Judge Walker held that LGBT people are a suspect class, but so far the Supreme Court has not held that. They have gone so far as to say that being gay or lesbian is a status and not a behavior, which helps us get there.

      Reply
    • 183. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      I’m going to quote Kathleen on the subject from another thread: (So blame her if it’s bollocks)

      “…on the question of whether a group is a “suspect class” the court generally looks at four factors: (1) it’s a group which has historically been discriminated against, (2) the group forms a distinct minority, (3) the group possesses an immutable trait, and (4) the members of the group are powerless to protect themselves by way of the political process.”

      Looking at those four questions, I find the idea that anyone could claim, “sexual orientation is not a suspect class” laughable.

      Reply
      • 184. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm

        Laughable as it is, Proponents submitted evidence and testimony trying to refute all but the first of the factors (they were willing to concede that the group had faced discrimination). For number 2, they claimed there was no clear definition, i.e., was it defined by behavior? by attraction? self-identy? For number 3, they dragged out the the tired old NARTH et al arguments. For number 4, Proponents had testimony from Kenneth Miller, one of their two witnesses.

        Reply
    • 185. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm

      Actually, It’s not clear to me that Walker’s discussion of g&ls as a suspect class is a holding, or merely dicta, as he did not rely on that finding in reaching his decision:

      “The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.”

      And then he goes on to show why Prop 8 fails under rational basis review.

      This is another of my questions I’ve not been able to get answered by any of the legal experts I’ve queried.

      Reply
    • 186. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:10 pm

      And to directly answer Jose, Walker’s decision did not rely on sexual orientation as a suspect class.

      Reply
  • 187. Kendall  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    So, I have a stupid Q that I don’t see mentioned here yet. Is it a Bad Thing that there aren’t 5000 amicus briefs for our side, but there are 5000 animus briefs for their side? (Are there more than one or two for our side, in fact?)

    I mean, a large pile of dung is still a pile of dung, IMHO…but I worry about judges reading soooooo much repititious garbage. “We” (our side) gets to respond to all these, at least, right???

    Reply
    • 188. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:33 pm

      Amicus briefs are due 7 days after the deadline for the brief of the party they support. So, because Proponents’ brief was due Sept 17, amicus briefs supporting Proponents (and Imperial County) were due by midnight Sept 24.

      Plaintiffs’ answering brief (our side) is due Oct 18 and amicus briefs in support will be due 7 days later. Generally, people don’t submit amicus briefs until they’ve had a chance to view the party’s brief. In theory, they should be supplementing the party brief, not just repeating what’s already been said.

      Reply
      • 189. Kendall  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:02 pm

        Ah, awesome! Thanks–that’s reassuring. :-)

        Reply
      • 190. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        Usually, it’s my understanding that unless an amicus brief is drafted by a complete amatuer, whoever’s submitting it has run it by the defense team of the side they’re supporting. The information presented is intended to dovetail together.

        In fact, amicus briefs are usually solicited by the official legal team. If you want something sholed up or some big names added to the mix, you go to them and say, “Could you submit an amicus brief addressing or reaffirming….(fill in the blank)”

        Reply
    • 191. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm

      “but there are 5000 animus briefs for their side?”

      IIRC the number is 26 animus briefs, not 5,000.

      Reply
      • 192. Kendall  |  September 27, 2010 at 9:55 pm

        Um, that was hyperbole. ;-) I know it wasn’t 5,000….

        26 sounded like a lot, with my misunderstanding of how this worked (and, frankly, still does sound like a lot).

        Reply
  • 193. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    I’m willing to write about the brief from The Liberty Counsel, Campaign for Children and Families, and JONAH Inc. (“Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing”) if no one’s offered already…and we didn’t spend an entry on it.

    Do we just post the analysis/response here in the comments section…or what do we do?

    Reply
    • 194. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:53 pm

      Go ahead and post it here but, if you would like us to consider posting it on the front page, send me an email at “prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT ORG” and we’ll take a look at it.

      Thanks CC!

      Reply
      • 195. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        Okay…I will work on this and send it your way. It will take a few days. I will accept the Grande Tribunal’s decision as final, and not engage in a long, drawn-out appeal.

        (signed, Your) Cookie

        Reply
    • 196. Anna Bryan  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:57 pm

      T.W.O. had an interesting story on JONAH’s reparative therapy techniques. It involved the gay male participants meeting privately with their male counselors and taking off all their clothes. Maybe you should start there?

      Reply
      • 197. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:55 pm

        Well, I’m not going to volunteer to undergo that, firsthand….but it sounds provocative!

        : )

        Reply
  • 198. TomTallis  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Everyone needs to remember that the Amicus briefs are opinion only and will be accepted by the court as such, NOT EVIDENCE. The ONLY evidence is the trial transcript and the associated documents, videos, etc., entered as evidence at the TRIAL, not these ridiculous briefs.

    Reply
  • 199. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Do courts ever comment on the amici in their decisions, or elsewhere? I don’t recall ever seeing that, but IANAL. Just curious.

    Reply
    • 200. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:45 pm

      They do, if they find an argument to be compelling or something that they think they need to refute. Possibly here they might comment on the brief from the 13 states, even though most are not even in the 9th Circuit. It still might be good to acknowledge that 13 states took an interest.

      But my Magic 8-ball hasn’t revealed whether they actually will do so or not.

      Reply
  • 201. Ray in MA  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    I’m willing to make a summary list:

    Robert Hardon

    Marginal Reilly

    Family Research Clowns

    Liberty Insane Asylum

    High Impact Discrimination Coalition, et al
    Western Law Center for Law & Policy on behalf of Parrots and Fiends of Ex-Gays and Desert Extreme Ministries

    The Ethics and Pubic Policy Center

    Liberty Clowns, Champagne for Children and Families, and
    JONAH, Inc.

    Anal Center for Law and Injustice

    The Housevacuum Project

    United States Inconstinent Catholic Bishops, et al.,

    Robert Pecker George, Sherif Girgitate, Cryin’ T. Anderson

    DARTH (Vader)

    Pacified Justice Institute

    States of Indiana Jones, Virginia there is a Santa Claus, Louisiana Losers, Mich (again), AlObama, IllAskHer, Fiorina, Ida the ho, Nebulousaska, Transylvania, South Vagina, You-Tar, and Wyo-whyme

    American College of Podiatrists

    Center for Constipational Jurisprudence

    The Scum Bucket Fund for Religious Liberty

    Natural Legal Inflamation

    Beagle Forum Education & Illegal Defense Fund

    Unconcerned Women of America

    National Disorganization for Marriage, NOM Rhode Ignorant, and Family Breeder

    Paul McPugh, M.D., John Hopkins University Disgusting Service Professor of Pyschiatry [sic]

    Eugene’s Dong

    American Cynical Rights Union

    Center for Constipational Jurisprudence in support of Appellants Imperial Butter County

    Catholics for the UnCommon Good

    … there you go.

    Reply
    • 202. Ray in MA  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:50 pm

      Note: The Housevacuum Project only meets on Saturday monings… I’ve been tring to get them to schedule at my home next week.

      Reply
    • 203. Anna Bryan  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:03 pm

      I think it was the “United States Incontinent Catholic Bishops, et al.,”

      I’m sure it was just a typo. No apologies necessary.

      Reply
      • 204. Ray in MA  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        Thank you for that critical correction :-)

        Reply
    • 205. TomTallis  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:24 pm

      Maybe “Marginal Reality?”

      Reply
    • 206. Ed Cortes  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:36 pm

      When I started reading the Dong Animus, I could only think of ding dong! I had to give up there, before reading why OS couples suffer dur to the expense of raising children!!

      Reply
  • 207. Ray in MA  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    For those of you who can’t stomach these briefs, OT… a side step back to DADT…

    In wee little RI, there is a big mouth show host: Helen Glover.

    She made a ton of money from “Survivor” years ago and spews the most assinine things…

    Fri morning I heard part of her show: (here’s the FRI 8Am Podcast at http://www.920whjj.com/cc-common/podcast.html)

    I had to email her: 920helen@whjj.com (feel free to join me)

    Subject: Hetero female soldiers: sex w/men because they fear being perceived as gay

    Helen (or should I address you as “Goat Woman”?),

    You: “That Law prevents homosexuals from serving openlyin the armed forces”.

    They are not “Homosexuals”, they are “PEOPLE”. American Citizens. When you meet someone do you always classify them as
    Homosexuals or Heterosexuals? You should be ashamed of the way you categorize us when you speak about us. An extremely vulgar reference on your part.

    You: “Don;t Ask Don’t Tell went down on Tuesday”.

    It did not. A debate on it went down. There’s a big difference.

    You: “…Harvard’s BAAAAAN on ROTC”.

    Harvard does not ban ROTC. They do not offer facilities for ROTC, and do not discourage their student from participating.
    You should be ashamed of yourself for such a misleading statement.

    You: “Scott Brown BLAAAAASTED that proposal by Harvard”.

    Jeezuz, you sound like a goat! He made an illogical comparison. Intelligent people do not make illogical comparisons.

    You are rude and misleading. If you have any compassion and intelligence, you would apologize to your audience on Monday
    morning after viewing this link:

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/09/24/breaking-judge-orders-maj-margaret-witt-reinstated-to-air-force/

    You appear to think that you and Scott are more intelligent than Federal Court Justices. NOT.

    You: “nor was it discussed what I did in the privacy of my bedroom…”.

    That turned my stomach this morning, and I felt I had to email you.

    Whoa girl!. No one is talking about allowing soldiers to talk about their sex lives! This law prevents a soldier from
    making a casual reference to someone they love and want to share their daily lives with. If a male soldier
    said to another soldier that they went to the grocery store with their boy friend yesterday and the funniest thing
    happened…” that would be grounds for ending a military career.

    Are you out of touch with reality on the DADT topic?

    Let me help you… do some professional research by reviewing the URL below.

    Note: the reference to feeding a fellow soldier dog food and heterosexual female soldiers having sex with men only because
    they are perceived to be gay…(makes for great unit cohesion, huh Helen?)

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

    God help you… how can you sleep at night?

    Reply
  • 208. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Out of the one that has all the states in it, the only states that fall in the Ninth Circuit are:
    • Alaska
    • Idaho

    Does anyone think they tried to get the other states from the Ninth District involved and they said, “nu hu!”

    Since they could only get two, I am thinking they went state to state to see which ones they could find, and only 13!

    Seems to me the Ninth should look at this.

    Reply
  • 209. customartist  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    How is it, from the Corporate Disclosure Statement, that the LDS “is an Unincorporated Association” (their words)?

    Where does the money come from, and go to? How is it reported? Something just doesn’t add up here with this.

    To the other point made that Gays are drug users, etc, would this same arguement be mede if the subjects were say, African Americans?

    If AA’s had higher Blood pressure, Drug abuse, Poverty, would it too be deemed as “not in the best interest of society” for Blacks to marry, Even Though they has been previously ruled by the Supreme Court as fully legal to participate in whatever private sexual acts that they care to?

    Reply
    • 210. customartist  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      ‘has’ should have been ‘have’.

      Pardon my vocabulary please – I do know better, just got carried away. Sorry.

      Reply
  • 211. Sven  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Paul McHugh, M.D., John Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor of Pyschiatry [sic]

    So correct me if I’m wrong but here is what I get from this brief. There is no “real definition” of Gay. Therefor gay people should not be able to get married because non-gay people don’t know for sure if you’re gay.

    “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (rather than
    confused, curious, or maladjusted.”

    If you don’t believe that people are actually gay, then it’s time to go back to that rock you’ve been living under.This brings up a very interesting question though. Are we also fighting for the right of heterosexuals to mary someone of the same sex if they so choose? This is another Balogna question in my opinion because the world is not run on hypotheticals. It is, or should be, obvious we are fighting for the right to mary the one we love. If you are a heterosexual who really loves ur best friend, wants to marry them, sleep with them, have children with them, and grow old together (and if your friend is of the same sex) then honey you might wanna think again about how hetero you really are?

    Reply
    • 212. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:34 pm

      Sven, showing that LGBT people have an “immutable” or unchangeable characteristic is one of the things required to show that there is a “suspect classification”, which would make it easier to overturn Prop 8.

      Reply
    • 213. Alan E.  |  September 27, 2010 at 9:20 am

      David Boies had a great redirect on this exact point. He asked two clear questions and that was it.

      (paraphrasing)

      “If two men want to get married, are they considered gay?”

      and

      “If two women want to get married, are they considered lesbians?”

      Reply
  • 214. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Holy animus batman!

    Thanks for this!

    Reply
  • 215. Michael Ejercito  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    We were discussing whether Judge Walkers decision should affect only the plaintiffs or not, you may recall. So why would the state continue to enforce a law that’s been found in court to violate the constitution? What reason is there to keep it?

    It was found to violate the U.S. Constitution only by a single district court.

    Other courts, like the U.S. Eighth Circuit and the Texas Fifth Circuit, came to different conclusions.

    Reply
    • 216. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:42 pm

      Thank you for being concise, but I don’t quite see your point. Courts disagree with each other all the time, laws change and precedent gets overturned. Pointing out that, say, the Texas Fifth Circuit found differently offers no reason or logic, it’s merely a statement of fact.

      I see no justice in allowing plaintiffs an exception to a law while maintaining the law itself. If it violates the rights of the plaintiffs it must also violate the rights of anyone in a similar situation.

      Reply
      • 217. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm

        Jonathan, you are better off not engaging Michael. He is an anti-equality real estate agent who posts quasi-legal stuff like this all over the web to roil people up.

        Reply
      • 218. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:42 pm

        Ann it would be terribly rude of me to ignore him after I’ve pestered him with this question so many times. Besides, I’m genuinely curious about his point of view, assuming he actually has one.
        If he’s nothing but a troll or FUD provocateur then time spent dealing with me is time he’s not using to annoy or terrify anyone else, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Well, at least on the internet where they can’t swing a chair at my head.

        Reply
      • 219. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:52 pm

        Jonathan, by all means have at it, and good luck!

        Reply
      • 220. Michael Ejercito  |  September 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

        I see no justice in allowing plaintiffs an exception to a law while maintaining the law itself. If it violates the rights of the plaintiffs it must also violate the rights of anyone in a similar situation.

        All the more reason for the Ninth to rule on the merits of the appeal so it can bind as precedent on lower federal courts.

        Reply
      • 221. Jonathan H  |  September 26, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        All the more reason for the Ninth to rule on the merits of the appeal so it can bind as precedent on lower federal courts.

        Perhaps, but you’re drifting away from the topic. Why should such a law persist in the first place? What line of thought could lead reasonable people to decide that the way to deal with an unconstitutional law is to exempt the plaintiffs from it and continue to enforce it on everyone else?

        Reply
    • 222. Anna Bryan  |  September 26, 2010 at 11:51 am

      Of course, this is NOT true at all. No other court has heard the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, so certainly could never have “come to a different conclusion” regarding THIS case.

      Reply
  • 223. Michael Ejercito  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Cookie, if the 9th finds that no one has standing then they will not rule on the merits of the appeal, and it will apply only to California. Only if they rule on the merits would it apply to the entire 9th Circuit.

    The Ninth Circuit can also grant permissive intervention, a prerogative of courts. See Fed. R. Civ. p. 24(b). (See also Richardson v. Ramirez , where the Supreme Court accepted the California Supreme Court’s adding of Viola Richardson as a defendant, even though she was not a defendant as the trial court level, and recognizing her standing to appeal even though neither the California Attorney General nor the California Secretary of State nor any other original defendant were appellants.)

    Reply
    • 224. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:11 pm

      It’s curious that the proponants are so eager to be granted standing, as all the expert evidence is against them. Do they really want to get creamed at higher and higher levels, with wider-reaching repercussions? Talk about a death wish!

      But hey….BRING IT!

      Frankly, their dollars would be better spent suing Cooper, etc. for malpractice, seeing as the legal representation at trial was so dismal. But perhaps that (heretofore unheard of) “Concerned Women of America” party will save the day.

      Reply
      • 225. Michael Ejercito  |  September 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

        It’s curious that the proponants are so eager to be granted standing, as all the expert evidence is against them. Do they really want to get creamed at higher and higher levels, with wider-reaching repercussions? Talk about a death wish!

        Do not forget that there are other cases in the docket like Bishop v. Oklahoma .

        If all of the evidence is against them, how did Jon Bruning (the Nebraska Attorney General who filed an amicus brief) win in the U.S. Eight Circuit in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning ? How did Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, win in In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. ?

        Reply
    • 226. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:13 pm

      Mor cope & pasted bullshite from the realtor troll….shu…shu…. : / …Ronnie

      Reply
      • 227. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:14 pm

        Holy typo batman…let’s try that again……More copy & paste bullshite from the realtor troll….shu..shu….. : / …Ronnie

        Reply
      • 228. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm

        heh… they’re trying to ‘cope’ all right :)

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 229. Anna Bryan  |  September 26, 2010 at 11:54 am

        He’s not even a realtor. He is no longer employed, hence the reason he trolls…

        Reply
  • 230. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Anyone remember which thread has the info on NOM West Coast tour stops?

    Reply
    • 231. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm

      Kate, here’s their website (“tus valores” is “your values” in Spanish — “vote your values” is the slogan):

      http://tusvalores.com/

      Reply
      • 232. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm

        Thanks, Ann. At least they could have used Ustedes.

        Reply
      • 233. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm

        Trying to fake a closer relationship than they have? Or lack of knowledge? Could be either!

        Reply
      • 234. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:49 pm

        OMG. I just looked at their site. Someone whose Spanish is better than mine, please tell me if I’m correct. Shouldn’t the plural command form of “votar” be “voten” ???? “Vota” (which to me is the 3rd person present tense) is painted all over their bus!

        Reply
      • 235. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:50 pm

        If I am correct about this, I nominant NOM for Most Expensive Typo of the Year.

        Reply
      • 236. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:52 pm

        nominate

        Reply
      • 237. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:02 pm

        Let me get this straight. They have a tour to appeal to Hispanic voters, and they couldn’t even spring for a decent translator? They have a tour to appeal to Hispanic voters, and they don’t have anyone onboard who writes proper Spanish?

        I don’t speak Spanish, but I do speak French, which has the same ‘you singular is familiar’ usage. If they made that mistake, I suspect there are others.

        Serve them right if their audience felt very insulted.

        Reply
      • 238. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:07 pm

        Maggie at the NOM Hispanic tour:

        Hola, amigos. Gracias. Adios.

        Reply
      • 239. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 26, 2010 at 12:30 pm

        YOU’LL SPEAK THE SPANISH THEY TELL YOU TO, IF YOU’RE A REAL AMERICAN

        Reply
  • 240. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    We need someone who is fluent to go through their Spanish-language translation of this site. I can spot major errors, but my “survival Spanish” wouldn’t be up to proofreading a full web site. This is getting funnier and funnier…….

    Reply
  • 241. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Will read more thoroughly later.

    Reply
  • 242. fern  |  September 26, 2010 at 7:51 am

    I want to thank you all for the answers, and BTW I understand the importance of California, do I know California? I can tell you I had lunch with an F-18 pilot inside the USS Constellation in SD.
    As for Arizona language law in my opinion English should be the main language and any other language used is a courtesy I worked there while on a tourist visa which is illegal and the judge in Page was overjoyed and offered $14 an hour to translate French, German and Dutch in court when needed.
    The law in Belgium is based on the Napoleonic civil code thus different from the U.S., I ain’t no lawyer and left school age 14 but I went into college political science for a year and fell in love with civil law, I must have been a natural since I won my divorce on adultery on my own, I was 20, now I’m 62.

    As for Ejercito it looks to me that the “J” is “la rota” in Spanish, also pronounced like the “X” in Mexico, pronounced Mejico? Would this means small exercise as I think the “cito” is diminutive.
    Cheer up y’all know you’ll win.

    Reply
  • […] Prop 8 Trial Tracker and their amazing contributor Kathleen Perrin uploaded all of the amicus briefs to Scribd and the Prop 8 Trial Trackers page on Facebook, which Eden James cross-posted to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Eden encourages people to “crowdsource reading these briefs, for the benefit of all involved, following Alan E.’s lead on the FRC amicus brief…..Jeremy Hooper got started on this one: 13 states, including Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming, filed a brief saying that Judge Walker “exceeded (his) judicial authority.”” […]

    Reply
  • 244. Joe  |  October 5, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    A child needs a female to be born (at least for now). He does not need a Mom to grow up healthy and happy.

    Reply
  • […] Though a few briefs may still come in that haven’t been posted yet by the court (which we’ll be sure to post to this thread), so far 24 briefs have been submitted to the 9th Circuit in support of the American Foundations for Equal Rights legal team’s argument validating Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. (Click here to read the opposition’s collection of amicus briefs.) […]

    Reply
  • 246. invitations123  |  April 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    With its lawsuit against the City University of New York’s black wedding invitations
    Evers College still pending, a criminal justice think tank run by the formerly incarcerated has departed that Brooklyn campus, settling into temporary quarters as it waits for permanent digs at the State University of New York at Old Westbury.
    Directors of the Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions said the SUNY campus on Long Island is one of pink wedding invitations
    aiming to partner with the center whose dispute with Merger Evers’ president of almost two years is one of several conflicts that continue to stir a headline-grabbing debate over the college’s future focus and direction. The Rev. Calvin Butts, a prominent Harlem pastor and Old Westbury red wedding invitations
    , extended the invitation to NuLeadership.

    Reply
  • 247. ForumStaff  |  April 22, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    ForumStaff

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

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