CA Supreme Court may decide as early as next week on Prop 8 question

February 3, 2011 at 10:49 am 138 comments

By Adam Bink

As originally reported in the LA Times, today the California Supreme Court Chief Justice told reporters that the Court could decide soon, as early as next week, on the questions submitted regarding standing. As many of you know, before it will decide on the merits and issue of standing, the 9th Circuit submitted a request for clarification to the CASC on whether proponents of ballot initiatives have standing to represent the state.

Stay tuned for some news as early as next week. Of course, here at P8TT, we keep true to our name as #1 Google result for “Prop 8 trial”, so we’ll be bringing you the best coverage possible.

Entry filed under: Prop 8 trial.

Creating Change A new home

138 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Michelle Evans  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Best outcome, in my opinion, would be for the Supremes to just not answer the question, and put it back into the 9ths ballpark.

    Reply
    • 2. Carpool Cookie  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:23 am

      Wow….in a cryptic way, how funny would that be to have a panel painted into a corner like that?

      Because the legal system IS a professional institution…and we all know how people at all levels, in all institutions, often prefer to pass the buck and say, “Uhhhh…not my job?” : )

      Reply
  • 3. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Adam, I didn’t read the article to say that the Court may decide on the questions as early as next week, but rather whether they would take up the questions at all. Specifically, the Times article states, “Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide ‘as soon as next week’ whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal”

    Here’s the L.A. Times article the SF Gate reporting is referencing
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0203-chief-justice-20110203,0,4196539.story

    Reply
    • 4. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:57 am

      and subscribing

      Reply
      • 5. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

        ♂♂

        Reply
        • 6. JonT  |  February 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm

          Reply
    • 7. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:58 am

      And I should clarify… Adam, maybe that is what you were saying, but the title and wording of the article may not be as clear as it could be on the distinction.

      Reply
      • 8. Steven  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:11 am

        They are just following their rules about taking cases and etc.. They will deliver it on a Monday or Thursday. If they take the question we will know by Wednesday afternoon.

        Reply
    • 9. Rhie  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:21 pm

      Scribing too.

      And thanks for the link. :)

      Reply
  • 10. James A Tuttle  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:04 am

    From that wording it seems hey have made up their mind not to. Wouldn’t they just go ahead and issue a ruling if they had decided to proceed?

    Reply
    • 11. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:21 am

      Not necessarily. If they do take up the question, I would expect them to request more from the parties than just the letters that have been submitted so far. There will likely be formal briefing and a hearing (oral arguments) before they issue an opinion.

      I think the “next week” time frame may reflect the fact that at that point both sides will have had an opportunity to submit letters and reply letters on the issue of whether they should weigh in.

      Reply
      • 12. AnonyGrl  |  February 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm

        But if they decide NOT to weigh in, then they are done and out of it, right? Then it bounces right back to the 9th?

        Reply
  • 14. Ed Cortes  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:05 am

    checkin’

    Reply
  • 15. Mackenzie  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Yay! I pray this does come next week. Let’s get the show on the road!

    Reply
  • 16. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:15 am

    What will happen to this site if CA supreme court says NO to the status, and 9th says no case. We know that it falls back to Walker’s ruling, which means Prop 8 is dead.

    Does this site die as well?

    Reply
    • 17. Jeremy  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:18 am

      Well, AFER is planning to launch another equality lawsuit, so I guess this site would transition to reflect the new case.

      Hopefully, SCOCA refuses to answer the question, the appeal is dismissed, and SCOTUS doesn’t get involved. Prop 8 could be dead by Summer if that happens.

      Reply
    • 18. Michelle Evans  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:18 am

      Never! We are a community that has found each other, and there are many issues yet to resolve across the entire country, not just here in California. The fight will, I am afraid, not be over for a long time. And even then, I have a feeling we will find a reason to stay in contact with all the good people here.

      Reply
      • 19. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:20 am

        I agree Michelle – this site will forever be a place for us to discuss Equality issues.

        Reply
        • 20. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:36 am

          ((Group Hug))

          Reply
      • 21. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Indeed, we’ll morph into the Marriage Equality Trackers. :)

        Reply
        • 22. AnonyGrl  |  February 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm

          Sing it, sisters! (and brothers!)

          Reply
          • 23. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:47 am

            ♫♫♫ (AND getting in on that group hug!)

    • 24. Nicole  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:57 am

      Personally, I think the website should simply be called “trial tracker” since that better reflects the current direction this site seems to have gone.

      Reply
      • 25. BK  |  February 6, 2011 at 11:34 am

        Perhaps after Prop 8 is dead?

        *ding-dong the witch is dead* :)

        Reply
  • 26. Straight for Equality  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Reply
  • 27. Manilow  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Ok – let’s say that CASC says “no” to standing – then the 9th doesn’t issue a ruling because there is no case – is the stay on same-sex marriages automatically lifted?

    Also – for those of you who may not follow sports (like me) you may be pleased to hear that the LA Clippers hosted an Equality Night last night – and while I was afraid at first to wear my equality shirt and “I Heart Boys” buttons, I was happily surprised at the warm reception by both fans and staff. I may not become a hardcore fan – but the Clippers will receive my praise for awhile for this. Also, I got to meet Kathleen – and have pictures to prove it!

    Reply
    • 28. Ann S.  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:33 am

      Woot! We wanna see the pictures!

      Reply
      • 29. Straight for Equality  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:35 am

        Me too!

        Reply
    • 30. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:45 am

      Meeting Manilow was the highlight of the night. I will risk embarrassing him by saying he’s really cute. I, however, may not recover from the trauma of having that photo of me floating around facebook.

      As to the stay, there are a lot of different things that can happen ehre, but generally once an appeal is finished (which in this case, might mean dismissed), the stay is lifted. If the 9th dismisses the appeal for lack of standing, they might leave the stay in place for a brief time to give Proponents a chance to appeal that standing issue to the US Supreme Court. And even if they don’t, they Supreme Court could issue a temporary stay while they decide whether or not to take an appeal from the Proponents. There are just to manyu possibilities here to predict what could happen until this case plays out to the bitter end.

      Reply
    • 31. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm

      Another cool thing at the Clippers game was that the pre-game national anthem was sung by Esera Tuaolo. The close-ups of him clearly showed the “NOH8” decal on his face. I admit that before last night, I hadn’t heard of him, but here’s his Wikipedia entry:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esera_Tuaolo

      Way to represent, Clippers!!

      Reply
      • 32. Manilow  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm

        Yeah – I looked him up too! I should have tried to find out if he was single!

        I also sent an email to the Clippers’ event planner thanking him for such a great event.

        Reply
        • 33. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm

          looks like at least had a boyfriend in 2010:

          Tuaolo was arrested for domestic violence in June 2010 in North Oaks, Minnesota. He was released on $2000 bail with a court date set for August.[4] Tuaolo stated that the person he was accused of assaulting was his current boyfriend and that it was a personal matter that was overblown by the media

          Reply
          • 34. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm

            In answer to Manilow’s question if Tuaolo is single I posted a quote from the bottom of the Wikipedia article. After posting the above quote, and thinking about it for a while, I felt a little remorse as could be mis-interepted as mean-spirited and perhaps throw negative light on Kathleen & Manilow’s experience. My apologies : (

            Indeed the incident occurred as there are several articles about it, but most view the incident as remarkable that gay persons have domestic problems same as straight persons….someone even quipped about they were having a fight over how to load the dishwasher…

            I did a little more research on Esera and found he wrote a pretty decent auto biography in 2006. I found out he was raising twins with his partner and I’m glad he was able to perform yesterday…Seems a kind-hearted person.

            http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1402205058/qid=1131048713/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5776059-9111155?v=glance&s=books

          • 35. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:46 pm

            YES gay couples suffer from domestic violence. I myself was a battered partner for many years.
            I was with a guy who we will call Sam for the better part of 16 years. Trouble is, he liked to beat me to a pulp once every few years. After him going to jail a few times and me going to the hospital a few times, I finally managed to break whatever stings bound us together and haven’t seen him in 10 years.
            I miss him, cuz we DID love each other, but I don’t miss the beatings.

          • 36. Ann S.  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:07 pm

            Peter, I’m so sorry to hear what you suffered, and continue to suffer since you miss him.

          • 37. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:33 pm

            I appreciate hearing your story Peter. You seem to be in a good place now from the tone of your posts….I hope life is good for you! Thank you for your contributions to P8TT : )

          • 38. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:03 am

            Ah domestic violence and love. I have been there and suffered that also, Peter. When my ex-father-in-law died, my ex’s aunt said that I should be getting part of that inheritance but, that, of course, it would have been ridiculous for me to have stayed in the marriage just for that. We had some wonderful times and produced my wonderful son that I always remind you all of. However, no one deserves to be treated with violence. My ex is a recovering alcoholic and the violence always occured when he drank.

            I hope that if there are any of you on this blog that are dealing with domestic violence will find a way to get out of the situation. No one deserves physical or verbal abuse.

            Sheryl, Mormon Mother

          • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:05 am

            Sheryl, you are so right that nobody deserves to be abused or to remain in a situation of domestic violence. As one who has survived domestic violence, I try to reach out to others that I see going through it, and to let them know that there is a way out of it. Of course, that also means that I know first-hand exactly how dehumanizing it is to endure domestic violence, and how it drains you of all your self-esteem. I also remember how strongly Farrah Fawcett felt about helping others get out of violent relationships. She did a TV movie, “The Burning Bed,” about a survivor of spousal abuse who set the bed on fire with her husband in it, and part of the reason she did the movie was to help the woman get released from prison. It worked! It also help focus attention on the epidemic of spousal abuse, and it helped others to get out of the situations they were in.
            Then there is the Martina McBride song “independence Day.”

          • 40. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:53 pm

            Yes, Richard, I remember the Burning Bed very well, I was still in my abusive relationship at the time but was sure routing for that wife. Yes, abuse, be it physical or verbal, certainly does rob us of our self-esteem. I sure that if it had been that I was sure the violence would soon spread to our son, I would have stayed longer. He was 6 when I left his dad and he was starting to get in between us when we would argue. I did not want him to have the memory of his dad hitting him (he never saw his dad hit me, but he sure heard the verbal abuse). I did not want his dad (who is a wonderful man when not drinking, Jeykl and Hyde describes my ex-husband perfectly), to have to carry the guilt of hitting his son, AND, I realized that by staying in the relationship, I was teaching my son that it is OK to treat your spouse with abuse. So, I found the courage to leave. I think that every time we tell our story, we reach out to someone and may help them out of the situation. (mine lived far enough away to not be aware of the situation). We let pride get in the way of asking for help. I was very, very fortunate that my ex’s parents were there for me. My mother-in-law was my confident. My in-laws loaned me the money for the down payment on my condo (even though my ex and I had been divorced for several years). Their door was always open to me. As I think about it, they, especially my mother-in-law showed real Christian love to everyone. They may not have agreed with their children’s and grandchildren’s choices in relationships but everyone was welcomed into the family with open arms. They both died when Kasey was in high school, but I have no doubt that he would still be welcome and loved. His grandmother was Catholic and his grandfather a Mason. If only all Christians could embrace everyone with love.

            Sheryl, Mormon Mother

            You are learning more about me than I’m sure you ever wanted to know.

      • 41. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:55 am

        Esera Tuaolo in 2007 (a year later…..)

        2010 singing

        Reply
      • 42. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:58 am

        I think I see Kathleen ; )

        Reply
  • 43. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Awesome….on another note…This is hilarious….

    Street Preacher Strikes Gay-Hating Gold: ‘Two Homosexuals Kissing…in the French Way’
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/preacher.html

    “LOOK!…Look everybody!…LOOK!…Get your cameras out! There’s two homo’s…Homosexuals kissing one another…It looks like to me, they’re even kissing in the French way…..(something about “kids tonight”…I can’t hear the whole sentence)… We’re gonna get that on Facebook tonight!…Two homosexuals kissing in a French way…….” ~ Street Preacher

    BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!….ROTFLMGAYAO….oh I think I popped a rib laughing so hard….meanwhile everyone in the background is cheering….lol…NICE!!!!….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 44. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:41 am

      I can’t read what his sign says…anyone know.

      Funny though! I give the two a standing ‘O’

      Reply
      • 45. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:57 am

        There was one item on the list I couldn’t read. But here’s most of it:

        Fornicators, Seducers, Drunkards, Porn Freaks, Sodomites, Feminists, Lesbians, Liars, Pagans, Hypocrites, Dope Fiends, ??, Partiers, Socialists
        AND ALL NON-CHRISTIANS
        HELL AWAITS YOU!

        With the exception of liars and hypocrites, that list basically describes me and my friends. (thought not all of them are non-Christians).

        Reply
        • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm

          Maybe the one you can’t read is Nail Biters.

          Reply
          • 47. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:36 pm

            MISC CHEATERS

        • 48. Straight for Equality  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm

          Oh, no! Liars and hypocrites? I had hoped all the cool folks would be in hell with me, but now I see that the NOM folks will be there too. I guess heaven will be a pretty lonely place.

          Reply
        • 49. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:55 am

          Hey, Mr. Hypocritical Sandwich-Board Preacher… Her name is ‘Hel’–one ‘l’, not two–and boy is She gonna have fun with the likes of you! Besides that, all the best people (excepting the warriors that go to Valhalla) will be there, and we’ll have the best bands!

          Don’t worry, Straight for Equality, I pretty much think NOM will find the underworld quite horrific from their own viewpoint.

          Reply
      • 50. Tim in Sonoma  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:39 am

        The sad thing is, it really does not matter what his sign depicts. He is a loon-a-tic!

        Reply
      • 51. MJFargo  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:52 am

        I believe the one you missed was “PARTIERS,” but that seems a little solemn even for this guy.

        Reply
    • 52. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:16 pm

      We get people like this in Salt Lake City regularly, notably on Gay Pride day seems more than usual. What impresses me is how young the kids often choose to debate with these “street preachers”. Last time around there were some 11-14 year olds calmly trying to educate the preachers…it actually moved me to tears to see young persons defending their friends, moms, dads, other family and associations with convictions and determination…not just screaming back and forth as sometimes happens.

      Reply
      • 53. Rhie  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:48 pm

        Oh wow that’s awesome. The future of the country! :)

        Reply
    • 54. thoughtful  |  February 3, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      Please tell me that’s a Poe.

      Reply
      • 55. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:44 pm

        No, this is a Poe.

        (NSFW at all!!!)

        Reply
        • 56. Tim in Sonoma  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:46 am

          OMG! He has lost it! So brainwashed it’s almost funny!

          Reply
          • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:20 am

            as mentioned before, I’m not so good at humor or sarcasm…I I think he’s making fun @ the protesters? If that is the case seems hilarious…as his claims are almost as silly as theirs….I watched one more video of his called “It gets WORSE”….cringe… p.s. what is a Poe? NSFW?(Not safe for work/women???)

          • 58. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:01 am

            Tim and Gregory,

            I have to apologize.

            1) Philip Huang is a gay performance artist who was making fun of the Westboro Baptist Church, deliberately going completely over the top. So it’s OK to laugh, that was the point. :D

            2) NSFW = “not safe for work;” i.e., contains profanity, etc.

            3) “Poe” refers to Poe’s Law, which says that it’s difficult to tell parodies of fundamentalism from real fundamentalism. Thus, since some folks thought Huang was an actual WBC member even when he was satirizing them, he was a Poe.

            Here endeth the lesson. :)

          • 59. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:12 am

            Thank you for new information SA : ) I never know what I’ll learn here.. Love it!

  • 60. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Blaine (Darren Criss) & the Dalton Warblers cover “Bills, Bills, Bills” by Destiny’s Child on the “Glee” Super Bowl special this Sunday at 10:30 pm EST……<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 61. Nicole  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:12 am

      Harkens back to the Nsync days – Wow, is Nsync retro now? Wow, I’m old…

      Reply
  • 62. Sagesse  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Scribin’ for later.

    Reply
  • 63. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Completely OT – Mona Lisa wasn’t a she – it is a ‘he’ – the painting is of da Vinci’s long-term young male assistant Gian Giacomo Caprotti.

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20463287,00.html?hpt=Sbin

    Reply
  • 67. Tim in Sonoma  |  February 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    A little off topic, but not really!
    The Status of the facebook page “Protect Marriage: One man one woman” today reads, and I quote.

    “New NOM RI radio ad tells Governor to get his priorities straight. As NOM RI Executive Director states: “Gov. Chafee needs to stop wasting time by messing with marriage and start focusing on the real issues of the state.”
    Me: Umm Practice what you preach, Good God Man!

    Reply
    • 68. Ray in MA  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      This is one radio station in RI that took money from NOM to play that commercial:

      http://www.630wpro.com/default.asp

      I heard it today.

      Feel free to give ’em some grief,

      Reply
  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    So NOM doesn’t hate gay people, right?…That is what they keep saying, yeah?…..NOM is not violating “Religious liberty”, right?…That is what they keep saying, yeah?…NOM is not trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of America turning our country into a Theocracy, right?…..That is what they keep saying, yeah?

    Fighting Back Against NOM’s Latest Assault on Marriage
    http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/fighting-back-against-noms-latest-assault-on-marriage

    “Freedom to Marry backers have just sent us a shocking leaflet from the Minnesota Family Council – a group closely connected to the so-called ‘National Organization for Marriage.’ In their own words, NOM plans to ‘stop the gay marriage movement in its tracks.’…..”

    “The leaflet claims that they are in a ‘conflict between good and evil’ and that ‘God has uniquely positioned Minnesota Family Council’ to restore ‘moral and spiritual foundations.’…..”

    (me) so NOM, you are “good” & Equality is “evil”?…Your families are “good” & ours are “evil”….your spiritual foundations are “good” but the spiritual foundations of everyone who doesn’t fall lock-in-step & bow down to you…I mean your spiritual foundations are “evil”….Yup…no HATE there what-so-ever…..NOT!!!!…(excuse me while I throw up over the arrogance, selfishness, & superiority)….Oh & just love , love, love (sarcasm) how you are going to waste $5mill to destroy peoples lives, attacking people’s families & children….rather then help the homeless, feed the hungry, provide healthcare, find cures for diseases, etc. etc. etc…you really do care about your fellow man….let me guess…If you stop Marriage Equality in Minnesota, “God” will provide those things…how is that working in that states that you forced your superiority on & oppression over LGBT law abiding tax paying American citizens?…That’s what I thought….good day sir….I SAID GOOD DAY!!!!….. <3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 70. Tasty Salamanders  |  February 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    For those of you who read Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal you might already know this, but those who don’t.

    NOM recently posted the latest comic on their website, rather than describe it you can see it here: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2144#comic
    (The red button at the bottom left of the comic gives a bonus panel)
    NOM thought there was some message in the comic supporting their position so they posted in on their website here: http://nomblog.com/4183/
    The author of the comic found out and being an equality supporter decided to screw with NOM and change the hotlinked image and have this as the result: http://twitpic.com/3w7b1j

    Apparently all the traffic caused by the author doing this is causing problems for people trying to access the page to see it themselves, also if you saw the comic page before going to the NOM page you may still see the original comic because it’s in your cache (which can be cleared with Ctrl + F5 while on the page).

    Reply
    • 71. CaliGirl  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      Ahaha, win. XD

      Reply
      • 72. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm

        : D

        Reply
    • 73. Kate  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm

      Ha ha ha — nomblog is crashed!

      Reply
    • 74. Sagesse  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm

      Tee hee. I did see the NOM page, but it is now inaccessible. I went back to clear the cache and see the rainbow on NOM’s site, but the page is showing an error.

      Reply
      • 75. Kate  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm

        Fortunately there’s a screen shot through the cartoonist’s link. A lovely sight indeed!

        Reply
        • 76. Ed  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:53 pm

          I just checked their blog…..it is midnight here, and sure enough, the page IS working….EPIC WIN!

          Reply
    • 77. Tasty Salamanders  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      Also the author put up a whole blog post about it if anyone wants to read: http://www.theweinerworks.com/?p=344

      Reply
      • 78. Tomato  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm

        Comments to the blog say NOM’s site is back up, but with the original stolen comic in place.

        Sounds like it’s time for a “cease and desist” order.

        Why does NOM steal?

        Reply
        • 79. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm

          “Why does NOM steal?”

          Because NOM & the rest of their ilk 100% believe that they are above the LAW & are allowed to use somebody else’s property without the permission of the owner….that is how they role…”ethics” is a foreign concept to them…so sad…. : I …Ronnie

          Reply
        • 80. Tasty Salamanders  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm

          I can only see the one comment but I still can’t reach it myself to check. Maybe the person still had the original comic in their cache.
          I would think that NOM would take down the entire post rather then leave it up with a mirror of the original comic.

          Reply
      • 81. Sagesse  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:50 pm

        Rainbow flag, Thomas Jefferson quote AND crashed their site. Score!! We should invite this gentleman to join P8TT.

        Reply
  • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Thanks. I will just be glad to see marriage equality in California restored!

    Reply
    • 83. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:29 am

      ditto! I would be THRILLED to see equality restored to CA! If P8TT goes national, all the better. I also hope there will be no more major setbacks in equality on the Prop8 scale. Though I’ve been shaking my head ALOT after the Iowa House vote : / Puzzling over Iowa, I eventually came to the thought that I am glad that 1/3 of the house believes in Marriage equality….which translates in my mind that at least a few straight persons in a middle-America location are rooting for us!

      Reply
  • 84. Ray in MA  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    OT Local RI FYI:

    http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/02/house-senate-reschedule-same-s.html

    Reply
  • 85. Michelle Evans  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    OT, but haven’t seen anyone post here yet concerning Brian’s latest email blast. Just had to share some of what he said. He was ranting about how ‘wonderful’ it is that Iowa was going to let the voters take away marriage equality. Here is the quote:

    <<Even I, who've heard pretty much everything at this point, was a little shocked to hear one gay marriage supporter say:
    “It would be less harmful to me if you would just beat me up in a dark alley. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray paint the word f—-t on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution."

    <<If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?

    <>

    Brian has said a lot of hateful things in his time, but to me, this was one of the most callous. Someone gets up and says that taking away their equality as an LGBT person is worse than being beaten up. (I understand and tend to agree with this comment.) But then Brian’s reaction to this is to disparage what the person said, and then tell us all that we just need a hug!!!!

    This man has always disgusted me, but this is a whole new level, I think.

    Reply
    • 86. Michelle Evans  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:08 pm

      For some reason, not all of Brian’s quote got pasted into the post above. This was how he finished his statement:

      “I know too many of our fellow citizens and neighbors who support gay marriage have reached a similar boiling point of emotion-driven unreasonableness. And I want to, on the one hand, give them a big hug or something to make them feel better. “

      Reply
      • 87. Tomato  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm

        He wants to give them a big hug to make HIMSELF feel better.

        Reply
        • 88. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:44 pm

          !!

          Reply
        • 89. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:57 am

          Tomato, you have just won the whole Internet.

          You’re exactly right.

          Love,
          Fiona

          Reply
    • 90. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm

      yup…a whole new level indeed….wow….Brian Brown…careful, your apathy is showing….I hear there’s “App.” for that….no?….ok….

      A hug?..really?..That is how we achieve world peace? A hug? How has nobody come up with this already?..a hug..wow..If only the white people “hugged” the black people..it would have been perfectly fine to be forced to the back of the bus, to use that other inferior water fountain, to not be allowed to vote, an apology for setting that cross on fire in the front yard of an African American home, or the church that was set on fire killing innocent little girls…all they needed was a hug..Those women wanting to be treated equal as men? Yeah that would have all settled down if only Male Chauvinist pigs gave them a hug. Yup that replaces the right to vote, work, & getting equal pay for equal work…..Those interracial couples asking for marriage? Yes they would have been happy with no government recognition & protection if all they had in return was a hug…..I guess the Native Americans would have been hunky-dory if they were given a hug in exchange for their land, the denouncing of their spiritual beliefs as folklore & myth, & forced onto reservations. Yes, a hug is a reward sufficient enough for surviving smallpox brought to this land by foreign Colonists…..a HUG!!!!….AAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAZING!!!….

      Or would that “hug” be a way for Brian Brown to get the affection he soooo obviously is lacking in some department….not saying that is what it is….I don’t know…do tell Brian Brown?…do tell?……never mind…I lost interest in it already….So how about those Packers?…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 91. AnonyGrl  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:40 am

        Way to completely ignore and denigrate the feelings of another human being, Brian. Tell you what, when you lose on the issue of marriage equality, we will line up every gay, bisexual and transgendered man in the country to give you all the big, warm, snuggly hugs you need.

        Reply
    • 92. Straight for Equality  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:14 am

      “If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?”

      Passing a law to take away a basic right is hardly just “disagreeing” with someone.

      Reply
  • 93. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Reinhardt found in the case BARNUM TIMBER CO. v. USEPA that Barnum does have standing…..

    Reply
  • 94. Misken  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    CORRECTION: The supreme court is NOT GOING TO DECIDE the merits next week, it is merely going to decide whether or not to TAKE THE CASE.

    If they decide to take the case, then we will get more news on the briefings and schedule of the case.

    Reply
    • 95. Steven  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm

      Actually, they are not deciding on merits, just standing……

      Reply
      • 96. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:20 pm

        Actually, they are deciding whether to certify and answer the question the 9th CCA justices asked about the standing of backers of a ballot initiative.

        Reply
    • 97. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm

      The California Supreme Court won’t be deciding on the question of standing; the question of standing for a federal case can only be decided by a federal court.

      I think what Misken is saying (what I said in my earlier post) is that this post makes it sound as though the California Supreme Court is expected to answer the questions put to it by the 9th circuit as soon as next week, and that’s not the case. What the chief justice said is that we should know soon (maybe by next week) whether the California Supreme Court is going to take this case.

      Reply
      • 98. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:32 am

        I’m grateful to Kathleen and others related to P8TT to translate these complex issues! Bless you!

        Reply
        • 99. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:02 am

          Adding my thanks also. I so appreciate all of the time and money some of you put into helping the rest of us.

          Sheryl

          Reply
  • 100. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Talk about “religious liberty”…this Pastor has some serious control issues & is in fact a BULLY himself….

    Daphne’s Mom Blasts Pastor
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/03/Daphnes_Mom_Blasts_Pastor/

    “Sarah says her pastor told her to apologize to the mothers who Sarah accused of bullying her and her son. If she refused, she could not receive Communion and would not be welcomed back to church.”

    (me) Why should she apologize to them?…I wish I could say that this unbelievable…but it is totally believable….the following is from her blog, which is linked in the Advocate article…..

    “For an hour and a half he spoke to me as if this was my fault, that I had misconstrued what was said that morning in front of my son, that I “had taken offense where none was intended.” I told him that the comments those mothers made that morning were judgmental and offensive. He continued to accuse me of libel and slander, told me I didn’t have a “free ride to talk about others,” and that I needed to apologize and reconcile.”

    (me) blaming the victim…classy Pastor…just saying….

    “I was offered 4 steps to restore my relationships with Moms ABC:
    1. Write Moms ABC an apology with an example of how to word it.
    2. Take down the Halloween post.
    3. No longer write or speak of these women regarding my “accusations.”
    4. Consider taking the entire blog down.”

    (me) excuse you?…do you pay for her internet?…Whose blog is it?….ummmm…control issues much?…again, keep it classy, Pastor…just saying…

    “When I asked what happens if I couldn’t do those things I was handed a final page that had already been prepared regarding my unwillingness to repent and what the ramifications of that would be. My punishment was to be disallowed from receiving Communion, and if I were to continue to not seek forgiveness, I may be removed from the congregation and not be able to transfer to another church in our denomination in good standing”

    (me) WOW…the document stating that she was “unrepentant” was prepared prior to actually suggesting & offering the repentance terms to her…WOW!!!

    “I cannot tell you the betrayal I feel. The church, or at the very least Pastor is trying to bully me into shutting up, and I find that so disheartening. I am floored by the fact that they’ve gone to so much trouble regarding a post that discusses love and tolerance that was posted 3 months ago. I am shocked that they do not see the hypocrisy of what they are saying to me. I am in complete disbelief that this has been handled in the way it has. I have never felt less welcome in a church……This is not the church that I grew up in. This is not the God that I know……..And again I say to you that bullying is not okay, even if you wrap it in a bow and call it ‘spiritual care.’…”

    (me) Good job Pastor…pushing someone away from your church…pushing someone away from “God”…..I may not agree with her religious beliefs..I don’t actually know what they are but it doesn’t matter…she is a mother who loves & cares for her son unconditionally was defending her & her son….& is being bullied by the church that she loves…I hope she doesn’t loose faith in the “God” that she loves…this is unacceptable…Religion, the house of worship, & its leaders are supposed to be there for spiritual guidance & represent their higher power here on Earth (at least that is how I view ALL religions purposes)….but this church &/or this Pastor seems to be playing “God” instead of bringing people to “God”…It appears that maybe it is this pastor who is bearing false witness….Again, I wish I could say this is unbelievable…but it is totally believable…this is how religion works in the 21st century…there are very unhealthy control issues involved in everything…I care about Boo’s well-being & I hope he is ok, happy, having fun, living & loving his life thus far & I’m happy to see how fiercely his mother loves him….She truly is a paragon of parental love….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 101. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:24 pm

      If anyone is excommunicated from that church and all others of that denomination, it should be the mothers who are accusing Sarah of slander and libel, and that pastor, along with the whole group of elders of that congregation. They are nothing but adult bullies and control freaks.

      Reply
  • 102. Sagesse  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Great article.

    Son of Iowa Lesbians Fights Gay Marriage Ban

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/zach-wahls-son-lesbians-speech-anti-gay-legislators/story?id=12832200

    Reply
    • 103. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm

      Here is the video of the interview with Zach, his moms, & his sister on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell”…..Great guy…awesome family….<3…Ronnie:

      Reply
      • 104. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:39 am

        It’s all about family.

        Reply
        • 105. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:45 am

          Perfectly stated!

          Reply
      • 106. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:35 am

        Almost 1 million views now on original Zach video : )

        Reply
  • 107. Ed  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:05 am

    Update on NOM’s blog about the comic…..seems the comic is back, instead of the rainbow flag, along with double the number of comments (from 6 to 12), but what I find interesting, is that in those new comments, NOTHING with regards to the rainbow flag. So not only is NOM stealing the comic again, they are deleting ANY comment that references the swap. But this is about protecting marriage…..of course it is…..

    Hi Maggie and Bryan, how ya’ll doin? And boy, wouldn’t your kids be so happy of yall, eh?

    Reply
    • 108. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:41 am

      Even tho NOM has reclaimed their stolen cartoon, I hope Zach’s response goes viral and gets NOM the attention they deserve.

      Reply
    • 109. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

      NOM = National Organisation for Misappropriation

      mis-ap-pro-pri-iate : verb : (of a person) dishonestly or unfairly take (something, esp. money, belonging to another) for one’s own use.

      mis-ap-pro-pri-a-tion : noun

      just saying….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 110. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:28 am

    OT but wanted to report on a conversation I had tonight with some friends, whom I’ve not known for a really long time and whom have not met my above-mentioned son. Was just talking about family and grandkids. When asked if my son was married, I said no he was gay. The subject then went to how I handled his being gay. and evolved into the subject of Prop8 and why did they need marriage when they had civil union which gave them the same rights as marriage. My response was that it does not. That I had thought the same thing until I went on-line and learned what a civil union or domestic partnership doesn’t provide. I started with the fact that there were no federal benefits, when filing taxes they first had to do federal taxes one way and state taxes another. And then talked about healthcare and how they had to pay either with more money taken out of their check than would be taken out for a straight couple or having to pay taxes on what was taken out for the partner while a married couple does not have to do that. Unfortunately, my friend had to leave for work. But I do think I gave him some food for thought. He did say that in the past few years he has come to accept that homosexuality is not a choice.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    Reply
    • 111. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:47 am

      : D ! another cc!

      Reply
      • 112. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:05 pm

        This morning I sent them the link to this article: “Gay Marine’s husband surprised at respect shown by Naval Academy” to demonstrate the importance of that marriage certificate. I am very sure that domestic partnership or civil union would not have provided the same impact on the Naval Academy personnel.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
  • 113. AB  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:50 am

    Do we have the response letters?

    Reply
    • 114. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:06 am

      So far, only the one from Plaintiffs is on the docket:

      Reply
  • 115. Sheryl Carver  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:37 am

    This is OT for this post, but the relevant one is getting old.

    After the news that Kittleman has said he will NOT vote to end a filibuster intended to prevent a vote on marriage equality in Maryland, I decided to send him another email. Probably won’t be read or counted, but just had to do it anyway.

    Dear Mr. Kittleman:

    As I stated in a previous email expressing gratitude & praise for taking a stand to support marriage equality, I am not one of your constituents.

    Since the news came out that you would vote for equality, however, I have read that you do NOT intend to vote to stop a Republican-led filibuster to prevent a vote on the bill. If this is incorrect, if you WILL vote to end the filibuster, please stop reading now.

    If you ARE going to refuse to vote to end such a filibuster, you deserve condemnation, not praise. It is easy to say you’ll be brave & “do what’s right” when you then work to prevent such an opportunity from ever taking place.

    You’re probably hoping that those who support equal rights will remember only that you said you would vote for marriage equality. And that those who believe you should support the GOP party line will remember only that you supported a filibuster. You may discover that each group remembers that you publicly betrayed them.

    I sincerely hope the news of your support for a filibuster is wrong. I hope you will consistently support civil rights for ALL Americans. Please do.

    Reply
    • 116. JPM  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:45 am

      Good for you.

      Kittleman has shown himself to be not a courageous champion of equal rights, but a mean-spirited politican who will play both sides of the issue to his advantage. He gets credit from almost everyone on the side of equality because of the headlines, while he can claim he did his best to stop the bill to his conservative constituency.

      He deserves all of our condemnation for this deceipt.

      Reply
  • 117. Bennett  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:06 am

    I know most of you dont care about what is rolling off the NOM blog these days after they began cesoring opposition but . .

    herek j martinez
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 8:59 am | Permalink
    What would really be common sense, is a law that actually accomplished something. Banning kids from single parent households and divorce for starters.

    What kind of idiot makes a child the direct object of a verb like “ban”. Maybe some old dinosaur who would move heaven and earth to prevent her son from marrying a girl with a birth certificate marked (gasp) illigitimate?

    “ban the children” thats just great!

    Maybe she thinks Maggie’s child should have been taken away.

    Reply
    • 118. Hank (NYC)  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:31 am

      I always love these kinds of nut jobs. It really points out how far off they really are.

      And you know, they keep talking about the children – let’s ask Brown Suit Brown and Shoeless Maggie – what happens to the children that are from single parents? What happens to the children that no one wants? What happens to the children that don’t have the option of your “perfect” 2 parents?

      Reply
      • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:52 am

        Those aren’t kids they particularly care about – they want children ONLY born from two heterosexual parents. They think then the children will be heterosexual – but that’s just some of their complete madness. Most of us LGBT were born from two happily married heterosexual parents.

        Reply
    • 120. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:09 am

      Oh, I’m over there with a scathing reply. As a single mother for over 13 years, I take offense at anything negative they say about single parents.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
      • 121. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:19 am

        Interesting, I made 3 different post (to 3 different articles), 2 were immediately posted. One is in moderation, do they only moderate those specifically in there “gay marriage” category? All 3 articles dealt with marriage equality but one 1 was under that blog title. I was surprised at the pro marriage equality posts that i read, except for the posts specifically targeted as “gay marriage”.

        Will see if they post my comment to the post “Do Boyfriends or Girlfriends Have Rights to Your Child”

        Here is my post awaiting moderation:

        #
        Sheryl Beckett
        Posted February 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.

        To answer the question, yes if the biological parent gave them that right, which in this case she did.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother (who thinks last nights conversation is making her bolder)

        Reply
  • 122. MJFargo  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:02 am

    I’m looking forward (!) to whatever language the CA Supreme Court will use in writing their decision, chiefly their attitude about why they were brought back into this. It will seem to be a guide to what the 9th can and can’t say regarding the “will of the people” in this matter. I’m trying to not have a heart attack from the excitement that this issue will be drawing to a close, happy or not…of course, happy is always a good thing. If we have to go back to the voters (and the courts rule against us), let’s get goin’. I want to get married before I die! (Not planning on expiring anytime soon, but really….)

    Reply
  • 123. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:16 am

    NOM, the National Organization for Malevolence is attacking LGBT families & Individuals again, pushing their supremacist superiority complex on tax paying citizens who don’t bow down to them…..

    Watch: NOM Attacks RI Gov. Lincoln Chafee in Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/watch-nom-attacks-ri-gov-lincoln-chafee-in-anti-gay-marriage-ad.html

    Sean Chapin does a breakdown of their hate filled supremacist propaganda ad…..

    (me) Why are you disrespecting, attacking, & harming LGBT parents & families, as well as single parents, couples who are infertile/sterile/incapable of carrying a baby, adoptive parents & couples who choose not to have children?…You, NOM are 100% unethical & immoral…you’re selfish…you’re greedy….you’re wrathful…you’re arrogant… you violate Federal & State Laws…you steal…you lie….you cheat……you fester & incite murder, violence, bullying, segregation, discrimination, & HATE…You do everything but show love, compassion & empathy…you think you are good people…when in FACT you are the furthest from being good people…you need to work on that….just saying…. : I ….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 124. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:35 am

    OT Today is wear Red for Women Day. Especially poignant for me as my ex-wife suffered major heart attack in a dramatic way. She used to be considered “morbidly obese” by medical standards. Today she is fit and runs 5k & 10k and 1/2 marathons. ((hugs and HEART)) to everyone who suffer heart disease…
    http://www.goredforwomen.org/wearredday/resources/documents/WRDPromotionalFlyerHR.pdf

    Reply
  • 125. SB Mom  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Checking in from Maui, as you have become” my family” too. I was disappointed earlier this week to learn that my son’s car was vandalized. He works in the upscale Montclair Village in Oakland. His is probably the only car with a pro equality decal on it. It was totally keyed and then covered with sticky silly string. The police were not interested in getting involved, even tho he told them it was a hate crime. I’m so disappointed in this kind of humanity.

    Reply
    • 126. Michelle Evans  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:23 am

      Unfortunately, a standard police reply. We’re not worth taking a report over.

      I spoke at the Orange County Sheriff’s Academy class on Thursday, and spoke about these types of issues. Been doing the Academy for several years now, and hopefully myself, and the others who work with me on these presentations, are making some difference in educating a new generation of law enforcement officials.

      When a crime does occur, hopefully we will have someone respond if they have been better educated on the subject.

      Reply
    • 127. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm

      : ( !!! @ son’s car. : ) @ Maui

      Reply
  • 128. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Hi, enjoy your time in Maui, relax and destress. So sorry to hear Michael’s car. It is sad that the police are not interested in pursuing the incident (and, if his was the only car vandalized, I’d agree on that hate crime issue). I learned a long time ago when my car was involved in a hit and run (my car was parked in front of where I lived), that the police do not follow up on cases like this.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    Reply
  • 129. Josh  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Ok, a question for the legal minds here at P8TT. “mightymoose” at the following link from the LA Times insists that Baker V Nelson should be law in the Prop8 case.

    My question is if that case is valid to uphold Prop8, why didn’t it come up as a MAJOR argument for Prop8? He says that it was brought up to dismiss this case, but it was rejected. Would that prevent Baker V Nelson from being brought up by the pro Prop8 side in the trial? He goes on to say that DOMA is the real issue to be fought, but he’s just another nom type who doesn’t want to appear as against GLBT rights, but he/she is. More lies, distraction, and sugar-coating as usual.

    http://discussions.latimes.com/20/la-me-0126-proposition8-20110126/10?sort=asc

    Reply
    • 130. Rob  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm

      I am not a legal mind but Baker V. Nelson was never decided on its merits by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed “for want of a substantial federal question,” which I assume means at the time, the court did not believe the issue was for the federal judiciary to decide. The appeal was rejected without a true decision on merits, however, because the supreme court dismissed the repeal with a comment, it does technically carry some weight in regard to precedence.

      Furthermore, Baker V. Nelson was decided long before the Lawrence V. Texas and Romer v. Evans rulings, so there is a question of whether Baker v. Nelson is even applicable in today’s legal environment.

      Reply
      • 131. Kathleen  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm

        Technically, this summary dismissal is considered a decision on the merits, but it’s still not given the same precidential weight as a decision with an accompanying opinion.

        Reply
      • 132. Kathleen  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:42 am

        The email notification system at the CA court site isn’t as thorough as the ones for the Perry case in federal court; it doesn’t send a notice every time something goes on the docket. I’ve been signed up since the case was first posted to the site, yet haven’t received a notification for anything yet. However, I think a decision on whether or not to take the case should trigger a notice.

        Reply
  • 133. Steven  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:08 am

    It looks like CA Supreme Court won’t decide to answer the 9th Circuit’s question this week.

    Reply
    • 134. Peterplumber  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:11 am

      It’s only Wednesday…or do you have more information?

      Reply
      • 135. Steven  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:14 am

        http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

        They didn’t have a conference meeting to discuss cases and they already posted upcoming decisions for tomorrow.

        Reply
        • 136. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:22 am

          Thanks for that link Steven. I signed up to receive email notifications for the case.

          Reply
          • 137. Manilow  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:30 am

            I signed up for that too – but I keep checking both this site and the courtinfo site thinking maybe there is an update and I just didn’t get notified… still hopefully for a decision soon!

        • 138. Kathleen  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:28 am

          I knew they weren’t scheduled to have a conference this week, which is why I thought it odd the Chief Justice said it might make a decision this week. But there’s a lot I don’t know about how the Court functions, so I figured there must be something I was missing.

          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)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...