BREAKING: 9th Circuit denies motion to lift stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling

March 23, 2011 at 11:20 am 141 comments

By Adam Bink

Just came in: the 9th Circuit refused to accept the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/23/2011 at 10:58:31 AM PDT and filed on 03/23/2011

Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 10-16696
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time. [7691622] (KKW)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Main Document
Original Filename: 10-16696 Order Denying Motion to Vacate Stay CIRC.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=03/23/2011] [FileNumber=7691622-0] [064e3099192dcfe6ea0f150ecee9ad74b262ea9d25e3b1907aedec1e1a2ecc965077db6207d8fe04be2b79ca0b2b4c4f072a8701a888cab3b2ebdb9d16f25775]]

The filing can be found here.

The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence:

Even though there has been no harm caused to the state since 18,000+ couples married in 2008. Despite the benefit to businesses small and large. Despite the need for same-sex couples to be as equal as anyone else. Appalling.

More as it comes.

Entry filed under: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Prop 8 trial.

How I knew Elizabeth Taylor What can we do about Prop 8 now?

141 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Felyx  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Kathleen, Help!!!!

    Reply
    • 2. Felyx  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:26 am

      This is horrible!

      the worst part is that there is no explanation.

      (Sorry Kathleen… it was a gut reaction. I realize now that there is nothing you are going to be able to day about this other than what we will all say about it.)

      Reply
  • 3. Gelz209  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:24 am

    I had a strong feeling that they wouldn’t lift the stay. Sad Day… Although the plantiffs gave such a strong case to do so, the ninth circuit is chicken shit to take a true stance and be reversed by the Supreme Court.

    Reply
  • 4. James Tuttle  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:27 am

    I feel as though that is what would have happened anyway but I HATE HATE HATE getting my hopes up. This is the 3rd or 4th time this has happened and every time I tell myself not to get excited but I do anyway and I (I’m sure all of us) end up with a mounting pile of disappointment.

    Reply
  • 5. Steve  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:28 am

    It’s pure politics and not surprising. They don’t want to meddle in politics too much, knowing full well how controversial lifting the stay would be. So they keep the status quo, even if it means bending the law.

    Reply
  • 6. be4marriage  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:29 am

    This isn’t justice, and there should be protests.

    Reply
  • 7. Sparky  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Can this be appealed to SCOTUS?

    Reply
    • 8. grod  |  March 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      @Sparky
      Has not the US Supremes recently overruled this court a number of times.

      Reply
  • 9. LCH  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:30 am

    *sigh* Sad but not unexpected.

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

    Reply
    • 10. LCH  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      This painful day is alleviated some what by our victory in getting Apple to take down the Exodus app. Maybe we’ll get good news from Colorado as well.

      ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

      Reply
  • 11. Ann S.  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Alas, I’m not surprised. It’s very sad, though.

    Reply
  • 12. Lightning Baltimore  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Ugh

    Reply
  • 13. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:32 am

    That is because discrimination never has to wait to go into effect, but doing the right thing and granting people their human and civil rights must always take a back seat. Especially when you are talking about the last bastion of state-sponsored, state-sanctioned bigotry that is still acceptable.

    Reply
  • 14. Steven  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:36 am

    I’m not Suprised.. i was expecting it..

    Reply
  • 15. Ed Cortes  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:38 am

    scribin (sadly)

    Reply
    • 16. JonT  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Also sadly :(

      Reply
  • 17. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Horrible news. Here are links to the two cases cited in the order. I haven’t looked at them yet to see how they apply.

    Nken v. Holder
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-681.ZS.html

    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (this says 2007; citation in order says 2007 – not sure why the discrepancy)
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1161275.html

    Reply
  • 22. Sheryl Carver  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I hope those judges have trouble sleeping at night, due to nagging by their consciences.

    Reply
  • 23. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Justice delayed is justice denied… > I ….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 24. sf94110  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:43 am

    I think it is time for us to investigate how to shorten or eliminate the California Supreme Court’s summer recess. Is this by the proposition process or would it require a constitutional amendment or legislative action? It is appalling to me that they are delaying a ruling on this case and others. Taking at least six months on such a basic question for this or any other case is ridiculous. The justices should be ashamed of themselves. I agree that the Ninth Circuit is cowardly, but at least they move their cases forward.

    Reply
  • 25. JoeRH  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:45 am

    This country is going straight to hell, one dumbass decision after another.

    Reply
  • 26. Bonobo  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Damn. But not surprising. Damn.

    Reply
  • 27. Kevyn  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:49 am

    What’s next?
    9th Circuit overturning Walker’s decision?
    Wouldn’t be surprising at this point…

    Reply
    • 28. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      What’s next?
      9th Circuit overturning Walker’s decision?
      Wouldn’t be surprising at this point…

      It is certain that the First Circuit will decide the merits of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services before the Ninth Circuit does in this case, barring unforeseen developments.

      I doubt the Ninth Circuit would uphold Walker’s ruling if the First Circuit upheld DOMA. On the other hand, if the First Circuit overruled DOMA on equal protection grounds, it would ceertainly affect this case (as well as casting doubt on the constitutionality of sex-based marital restriction in Maine and Rhode Island). And (assuming the Supreme Court decides to decide Gill without waiting for Perry ) if the Supreme Court overturned DOMA on equal protection grounds, that would be dispositive in this case in favor of the plaintiffs.

      Reply
      • 29. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm

        Yaaaaaaaaaaawn…. 8 / …..Ronnie

        Reply
      • 30. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:12 am

        Because a failed realtor has so much legal knowledge.

        ::snore::

        Reply
  • 31. Lightning Baltimore  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:50 am

    The more I think about it, the more I think I understand the refusal.

    If they lift the stay, they give the appearance of telegraphing their final decision prior to the CASC making their judgement on standing, since it wouldn’t really make sense to lift the stay then later overrule Walker’s decision. Plus, if they did lift the stay, but then later overruled Walker, there’d be a whole new round of court cases.

    Reply
    • 32. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm

      They don’t even yet know if anyone has standing to appeal Walker’s decision……if they find no standing and walker’s decision stands than all of this wasted time was for naught.
      They could most certainly have lifted the stay until such time as standing was determined.

      Reply
  • 33. sf94110  |  March 23, 2011 at 11:53 am

    How about turning Britney’s San Francisco concert in the Castro on Sunday into a giant protest against injustice. There will be a national audience on Good Morning America when it is aired. The justices named in this ruling and the California Supreme Court should resign for delaying justice.

    Reply
  • 34. Steven  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Sorry to say this, some of you need to understand that they had to denied lifting the stay throughout the appeal process. and 9th and CA Supreme Courts have other cases to deal besides ours.. loving v. VA took 4 yrs to get a final decision……

    Reply
    • 35. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:08 pm

      No they did not HAVE to keep the stay in place….a stay that should never have been garnted in the first place.

      Reply
    • 36. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm

      I guess Olson and Boise don’t understand the appeals process since they are the attornies that filed motions for the stay to be lifted……..

      Reply
      • 37. AnonyGrl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm

        To be fair about it, I would guess that Olson and Boies probably knew that it was a long shot at best that the stay would be lifted. However, they would have been greatly remiss if they did not at least try.

        It sucks, certainly, but this is how the courts work. They tend to err on the side of caution when in the midst of a case, rather than cause more problems on the far end, as would happen if they did lift the stay, then ended up reversing Walker. While that is not the likely course they will take, they have to consider that it is possible, and so would be far more likely to preserve the status quo, no matter who it hurts, while in the decision process. But the fight is not over, merely delayed.

        And yes, I do know what this delay costs us, especially couples like Ed and Derrance… and the judges most likely do too… but that personal knowledge is unlikely to change the way the process works, sadly.

        Reply
      • 38. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm

        I guess Olson and Boise don’t understand the appeals process since they are the attornies that filed motions for the stay to be lifted……..

        And their basis was a letter from the U.S. attorney general that claimed DOMA was unconstitutional, which is no more an authority than a brief filed by the Texas attorney general claiming that Texas’s Proposition 2 was constitutional.

        Reply
        • 39. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm

          Your op is moot……..Bwaaaa….comparing the U.S. AG to the Texas. AG…..Bwaaaaa…..what a maroon…… XP ….Ronnie

          Reply
          • 40. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm

            They are both lawyers.

            Why should one’s opinion be more authoritative before the Ninth Circuit than the other’s?

          • 41. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm

            U.S. AG…a state AG….teeter-totter, teeter-totter…figure it out…. 8 / ….Ronnie

        • 42. AnonyGrl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm

          Obviously you did not read the brief. In fact, they REFERENCED the DOMA letter, but it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the BASIS of their brief.

          Please, just do a LITTLE homework before you spout off, that is all we ask.

          Reply
          • 43. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:13 am

            This is Michael Ejercito we’re talking about, Anonygrl. His source for information is what he sits on.

        • 44. grod  |  March 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm

          @ but this application to lift the stay got before the Court that the Federal Government believes there is a need to consider cases involving sexual orientation on the basis of ‘hightened scrutiny’.

          Reply
    • 45. be4marriage  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:27 pm

      Loving v. Virginia was filed in Federal Court in October of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled less than three years later, in 1967. The Lovings remained “married” throughout their court case.

      Reply
  • 46. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Robert and I may have to pospone our wedding trip back to Iowa as he is just not sure he’s up to such a long trip.
    Had hoped that a shorter trip down to CA might have been possible instead.
    This is just devastating news

    Reply
    • 47. AnonyGrl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm

      I am SO sorry… I wish there was something I could do to help… if I had a million dollars, there would be a limosine at your door right now and a private jet waiting to take you to Iowa!

      Please also understand that my post above, about Olson and Boies and the delays does not in ANY way mean that I think the delays are a good thing, or even justified… simply saying “I know they happen.”

      Reply
      • 48. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm

        I love you too AnonyGrl :-)

        Reply
    • 49. JPM  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:51 pm

      Vancouver is a lot closer…

      Reply
      • 50. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:57 pm

        Not recognized by our employers so would not get us what we need, namely pension and death benefits.
        :-(

        Reply
        • 51. Joel  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:03 pm

          You have to be married in a state before your employers recognize your relationship? My employer (two separate employers, actually) recognized our relationship based on our domestic partnership registered in WeHo CA. And this was when I was working in MI, one of the least progressive states.

          I sincerely hope you and your husband can make it to Iowa. I too would chip in for the limo and private jet, if I had the werewithall. Good luck to you both!

          Reply
          • 52. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:06 pm

            Yes sadly the pension plans are adminitered by an out of state coorporation and will only recognize ‘marriage’…..CU nor DP are not enough for them. :-(

          • 53. Ed Cortes  |  March 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm

            Would a marriage by proxy, or over the internet (like Skype maybe) work?

          • 54. karen in kalifornia  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:23 pm

            Same for own union pension here in California…will recognized “marriage” if legal where licensed for pension but no California RDP. For regular health benes, RCP recognized.
            Why do we have to keep track of so many exceptions? This alone is not fair.

          • 55. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:35 pm

            @ Ed: only a few states offer marriage by proxy and usually only for military personnel deployed to an active war zone. Phone/Skype weddings (despite the heart-warming stories you see in the press) are not legally binding and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve pointed that out in online comments sections….articles about phone/online marriages give people very bad ideas, and there are lots of shysters willing to take money for illegal marriage scams.

            Mark, I’m sad for you also, and I’d not only chip in for limo/jet/cake/tuxedos, but happily comp you on the marriage license as well. <3

          • 56. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:08 pm

            Thanks everyone….I appreciate the kind words.
            I hope you know it’s not about the money…..

          • 57. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm

            I for one have always gotten the sense that it is about a legal and civil recognition of your love and commitment to each other. And I too wish I could help you with this.

  • 58. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    The 9th Circuit stretched the rationale for a stay when they granted it in the first place. They can’t reverse themselves now without acknowledging that the foundation was shaky to start with.

    Curious to see if Plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS. I suspect not, because that is not what they want SCOTUS to weigh in on here.

    Reply
  • 59. Joel  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    It certainly seems that the President’s decision not to defend DOMA because it is unconstitutional has had little effect on the 9th court justices. Nor has public opinion, which, for the first time, has swayed in favor of marriage equality.

    One wonders if the 9th Circuit denied the motion to lift the stay because they see a reasonable chance of success for the appeal. I hope I’m wrong…

    Reply
  • 60. Carpool Cookie  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Is this old news?

    Former SNL cast member Victoria Jackson is “disgusted” by gay kiss on Glee.

    She’s a teabagger, friend of raunchy homophobe Andrew Dice Clay, and was raised in a Christianist home without a TV.

    Reply
    • 61. Phillip R  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      Eh…a bit old but who cares.

      I found a fair bit of her comments rather offensive…mainly her whole ‘homosexuality is really a comedic skit’ blurb. I don’t usually get offended over bigotry as I often see it as being pointless but that one cut to the quick for some reason.

      Reply
      • 62. Phillip R  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:33 pm

        Thought I should clarify my point on bigotry for some reason. It’s not that I don’t think bigotry is horrible as it obviously is…I just don’t let it personally affect my mood/emotions. Often, I view them no differently than a child who makes an ignorant remark because they don’t know any better.

        Reply
      • 63. Straight for Equality  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:21 pm

        She also said they were “trying to make kids gay.” She just doesn’t know the facts or has bought into the whole anti-gay propaganda. Or, more likely, both.

        Reply
        • 64. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm

          GeorgeTakei’s tweet on the subject:
          “SNL’s Victoria Jackson thinks Glee is turning boys gay. Frankly, I think Victoria Jackson is more to blame for that.”

          Reply
          • 65. Straight for Equality  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:36 pm

            LOL!

          • 66. karen in kalifornia  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:25 pm

            Very funny.

          • 67. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm

            Ooof! Mr. Sulu FTW!

          • 68. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

            OH SNAP!

        • 69. JonT  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm

          More likely, she is just plain stupid. Willfully so.

          Reply
    • 70. LCH  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm

      I’ve disliked her ever since she defended a racist comic character that she developed. It was akin to doing a black face routine.

      Reply
    • 71. BradK  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:33 pm

      Victoria Jackson is indeed “old news”, yes. Tossed away in the celebrity has-been bargain bin next to Steven Baldwin.

      No self-respecting gay stylist would apparently go near that bird’s nest atop her empty skull.

      Reply
    • 72. Ray in MA  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:46 pm

      Her opinion, coming from the ‘ding bat’ that she appears to be are not going to make her ‘side’ look good.

      Reply
    • 73. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      Is she doing a bit? Seriously.

      Reply
      • 74. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 23, 2011 at 9:57 pm

        Has she been sniffing the helium again? I mean, she sounds more like Alvin and the Chipmunks than a real human being!

        Reply
  • 75. mackenzie  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    As most of the others, i am not a bit surprised. This is what i had expected. We have never had it easy. We have been forced at every turn to be delayed, regather, and try again. We have perserved every time. Let them delay justice, the longer they do, the more determined we become, and the more support we garner. WE aren’t going anywhere.

    Reply
    • 76. Joel  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      You know, this could end being another bullet in our stock of “no political power” ammo that will eventually lead to the granting the LGBT community “suspicious” standing under the law. Just trying to see a silver lining here, and no, I was not in the least surprised.

      A final and heartfelt toast to Elizabeth Taylor, the last of the Studio royalty. Safe harbours, Ms. Taylor.

      Reply
      • 77. Phillip R  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:34 pm

        Well that’s definitely one way to look at it. Gotta find that silver lining. I’m not surprised at all that they kept the stay. Honestly, I’d have been more surprised if they lifted it (although absolutely ecstatic if that happened).

        Reply
  • 78. Fluffyskunk  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Why is anybody surprised?

    The stay was granted for political reasons. It is now being kept in effect for political reasons. There was no way they were going to lift it.

    Reply
    • 79. Joel  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      Could you outline those politics? I’m not being facetious, I merely don’t understand.

      Federal justices are not up for review or dismissal; the federal courts are supposed to above politics and public opinion, they answer and uphold and interpret the law.

      Reply
  • 80. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    I can’t figure out where my posts are going. Apologies if this is a repeat… AFER’s statement:
    http://www.afer.org/news/afer-statement-regarding-prop-8-court-decision-to-uphold-temporary-stay-prohibiting-marriage-for-gay-and-lesbian-couples/

    Reply
  • 81. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    The plaintiffs could still appeal to the Supreme Court, although given that Court’s procedural decision in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States Department of Defense , it is unlikely that Court would have vacated the entire stay.

    One thing the plaintiffs could have done (and could still do on a petition to the Supreme Court) is to ask the Ninth Circuit to vacate the portion of the stay that stayed the portion of the injunction that required the defendant county clerks to issue a license to the plaintiffs, while leaving the rest of the stay intact. And there is precedent for this in the Supreme Court. In Department of Defense v. Meinhold , 510 U.S. 939 (1993), the Supreme Court issued a stay pending review by the Ninth Circuit of a district court order that enjoined enforcement of an earlier, more restrictive policy against homosexuals in the military, except to the extent it enjoined the government from discharging the Meinhold plaintiff, who ultimately prevailed in the suit. Plaintiffs can not demonstrate they have standing to assert the rights of other persons who might be harmed if the stay were to remain in place, while they certainly have standing to assert their own rights.

    Reply
    • 82. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      Oh, look…the realtor who pretends to be a lawyer…..MAUDE!!!!…. 8 / …..Ronnie

      Reply
      • 83. be4marriage  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:29 pm

        He’s not a realtor. He was fired and sits at home sucking up unemployment benefits.

        Reply
    • 84. fiona64  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      Jesus Christ, the wannabe lawyer is back.

      I swear, I have never said this to *anyone* — but I’m making an exception for you. Your life clearly has no purpose, Michael Ejercito, or you would not spend it in trying to cause pain to others.

      Go fuck yourself (since it’s the most action you’re ever likely to get).

      Reply
    • 85. AnonyGrl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      And do you really think the court is more likely to create yet ANOTHER class of married people (this one holding only four members) to further muddy the waters?

      I think it rather unlikely,even more unlikely than lifting the stay entirely.

      Reply
      • 86. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:30 pm

        And do you really think the court is more likely to create yet ANOTHER class of married people (this one holding only four members) to further muddy the waters?

        Those four people could be informed that their marriages would be invalid ab initio if they ultimately lose.

        Reply
        • 87. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:35 pm

          Pffft….. 8 / ….Ronnie

          Reply
        • 88. AnonyGrl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:39 pm

          Which misses my point entirely, but nice try. They could inform everyone who ever got married that their marriage was invalid by means of skywriting, but that was not my point.

          My point was, there are already several classes of marriage in California; people who are married and can divorce and remarry, people who are married and can divorce but NOT remarry, people who were married and then had their marriages voided because the mayor had overstepped, people who were married but were voided because they are transgendered, and so on. At this point, do you think the court wants to add another interim catagory by saying “These four and no more, maybe”, thereby opening another whole can of worms legally? I am guessing no, they would not.

          Reply
          • 89. Michelle Evans  |  March 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

            It’s been another hard day to have to have our rights denied yet again, so I’ve pretty much decided to just sit here and sulk. However, I did want to thank AnonyGrl for also including trans people who are a class of people directly hurt by what is going on.

            Have to leave to go work on my book, but doing so after this sort of news really makes writing and being creative really tough…

        • 90. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:15 am

          Don’t use terms you don’t understand, dimwit.

          Reply
    • 91. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 3:18 pm

      As the bowl of petunias said, “Oh no, not again.”

      I can live without an edit button, but an ignore button would be sooo useful.

      Reply
      • 92. JonT  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm

        +1 :)

        Reply
        • 93. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:15 am

          Plus eleventy-one. I thought this jerk had been banned.

          Love,
          Fiona

          Reply
      • 94. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm

        I’m not getting the petunia reference, but another punchline about a clown is coming to mind.

        Reply
        • 95. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm

          Hitchhiker’s Guide reference. I didn’t get the ‘pearls’ reference the other day :).

          Reply
          • 96. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm

            Ah. I need to grab a towel and reread that. :)

          • 97. Maggie4NoH8  |  March 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm

            For the pearls reference…

            “A Greater Tuna” stage play (once aired in 1984 as a HBO special) and available on DVD – taped at Bass Hall in Fort Worth TX by the local NBC station…

            If you ever get to see it – especially with the creators Joe Sears/Jaston Williams, for heaven’s sake, GO!

      • 98. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm

        hehehehehehehehe

        Reply
      • 99. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 23, 2011 at 9:34 pm

        Isn’t this about time for Audrey II to cry out, “Feed Me, Seymour!”

        Reply
  • 100. Carl  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Are we really surprised to discover that the conservative party members are total assholes?

    Reply
  • 101. Michael Ejercito  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Jesus Christ, the wannabe lawyer is back.

    I swear, I have never said this to *anyone* — but I’m making an exception for you. Your life clearly has no purpose, Michael Ejercito, or you would not spend it in trying to cause pain to others.

    Go fuck yourself (since it’s the most action you’re ever likely to get).

    With which part of my post did you disagree? None of my statements of fact in that post were incorrect. The Supreme Court did hear a petition regarding the stay of an injunction in the Meinhold case, and they refused to stay the portion of the injunction that applied to the Navy discharging the plaintiff. And the plaintiff ultimately prevailed in his case. (Ninth Circuit upheld district court, albeit on other grounds, and the Supremes denied cert.)

    Reply
    • 102. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:33 pm

      Are you so dense as to not being capable of comprehending the phrase “wannabe lawyer”?…..MAUDE!!!!…. 8 / …..Ronnie

      Reply
      • 103. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:17 am

        Of course he’s that dense, Ronnie.

        Michael, at this point the major thing with which I disagree is your existence. You come here solely to troll. You are not a lawyer, your “points of fact” has been refuted repeatedly because you do not understand what you are talking about.

        You are not contributing anything to the conversation.

        Just. Go. Away.

        Reply
  • 104. Rhie  |  March 23, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Watching

    Reply
  • 105. Suzanne (not for much longer) O.  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Stuff it, Michael Ejercito. Your desire to limit the civil rights of my friends, colleagues, loved ones, and strangers I haven’t yet met is simply disdainful. You lack humanity. You are an ugly spirit, very unkind, and are on the wrong side of history.

    Reply
  • 106. What can we do about Prop 8 now? « Prop 8 Trial Tracker  |  March 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    […] I wrote earlier today, the 9th Circuit decided to not lift the stay on Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is […]

    Reply
  • 107. Josh  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Big ####### surprise!!

    No one is hurt by ending discrimination so there is no reason to have a stay on dumping propH8.

    Hmm, maybe the “Gay Mafia” is directing this so it dosn’t get to the supreme court before public opinion is high enough. I’m really tired of the delays, but the puppet masters must know what’s best for us :-)

    Reply
  • 108. Josh  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Can this decision to DENY lifting stay be appealed to the supreme court now?

    Reply
    • 109. Steven  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      Yes, it can be appealed to SCOTUS, but AFER won’t appeal it.. jmo..

      Reply
  • 110. Dave  |  March 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Was there a vote on lifting the stay? If so will we know how each judge voted?

    Reply
  • 111. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Completely OT, but we can use a little levity.

    For the math geeks in the crowd.

    Conservative Pie; Republicans Introduce Legislation Redefining Pi as Exactly 3

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-squires/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828.html?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily+Brief&utm_campaign=daily_brief

    Reply
    • 112. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 6:07 pm

      hehehehehehehe
      Thanks! That was a fun read…REALLY glad it’s fake :-)

      Reply
      • 113. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm

        Glad it gave you a smile :). Hoping things work out for you and Robert and your trip to Iowa.

        Reply
        • 114. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:18 pm

          Thanks! :-)

          Reply
    • 115. Ronnie  |  March 23, 2011 at 6:16 pm

      “You can’t legislate math; that’s like making it illegal to rain on the Fourth of July,” ……..ROFL….. XP …..Ronnie

      Reply
  • 117. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    DOMA repeal supporters seek Senate hearings

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/03/23/doma-repeal-supporters-seek-senate-hearings/

    Reply
  • 118. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    HRC Urges Top Law Firms Not to Take up House Defense of DOMA

    http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/03/hrc-urges-top-law-firms-not-to-take-up-house-defense-of-doma/

    Reply
    • 119. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:40 pm

      At this rate, they’re going to have to hire an Orly Taitz-caliber whackadoodle to defend it.

      Reply
  • 120. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Gay binational couples speak of experiences

    http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=31043

    Reply
  • 121. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    DOMA’s Dwindling Defenders — in Congress and Across the Country

    http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/domas-dwindling-defenders—-i.html

    Reply
    • 122. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:42 pm

      As Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz told Metro Weekly on March 22, “This is a dog of an issue for most Republicans, and most reasonable, politically sophisticated Republicans completely understand that public opinion has shifted way away from these issues.”

      Asked if this means Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) – a co-sponsor of the resolution – isn’t a “sophisticated politician,” Sainz said, “I am. She is … and I would daresay that the 100 of them that signed on … these are like red-meat folks.”

      OH SNAP!

      Reply
    • 123. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:44 pm

      Obligatory Roy Zimmerman:

      Reply
      • 124. Straight for Equality  |  March 24, 2011 at 8:23 am

        That was wonderful! Thanks. I’ll have to look for other videos he has done.

        Reply
      • 125. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 25, 2011 at 4:10 pm

        never heard of Roy Z. LOVED IT!

        Reply
  • 126. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Beautifully written.

    General Assembly’s Defeat of the Gay Marriage Bill was Disgraceful

    http://bowie.patch.com/articles/general-assemblys-defeat-of-the-gay-marriage-bill-was-disgraceful

    Reply
    • 127. JonT  |  March 23, 2011 at 9:06 pm

      Indeed:

      Writer Susan Jacoby offers some interesting comments: “Why would anyone care whether there is a biblical case to be made for gay marriage? You might as well ask whether there is a religious or biblical case to be made for or against slavery.”

      The answer, of course, is that the Bible can be cited in support of or in opposition to any human behavior and human need. That is why, as voters and legislators, we ought not to be asking ourselves what the Bible or particular religions say about anything and should stick to what is reasonable in modern society and legal under our Constitution.

      Hear hear! :)

      Reply
      • 128. fiona64  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:20 am

        Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason, which I have mentioned here several times. It’s definitely worth reading, and I wish I’d never loaned my copy out to the former friend who absconded with it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 129. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Update: R.I. AFL-CIO board supports gay marriage bills

    http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/03/labor-union-supports-gay-marri.html

    Reply
    • 130. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:37 pm

      Shades of Harvey Milk – nice!

      Reply
  • 131. New  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    I just saw this little gold you may find interesting

    Reply
    • 132. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:24 pm

      Where did you find this?

      Reply
      • 133. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:28 pm

        Never mind… I didn’t see it was from youtube.

        Reply
        • 134. New  |  March 24, 2011 at 7:59 am

          Sorry for not answering you promptly Kathleen. I’m having emergency house plumbings and maintainances to deal with.
          Yes this video is from youtuber goodasyou and I hope it’s not a problem to post it here. I wish there were more of these. It brings good memories of the trial.

          Reply
          • 135. Kathleen  |  March 24, 2011 at 9:46 am

            Not a problem! And so sorry about the household emergencies.

  • 136. Sagesse  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Pro-equality spokesmen, and Liberals generally, really need this.

    Media Matters boot camp readies liberal policy wonks for the camera’s close-up

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-matters-boot-camp-readies-liberal-policy-wonks-for-the-cameras-close-up/2011/03/15/AB4TI9EB_story.html

    Reply
    • 137. Kathleen  |  March 23, 2011 at 8:48 pm

      THAT was an interesting read!

      Reply
  • 138. Demand Equality  |  March 23, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    The 9th circuit has not made up their minds if gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are human enough to have human rights yet or American enough to have constitutional rights. They didn’t make up their minds in the last century – hopefully they will make up their tyrannical theocRAT heterosupremacist minds in this century. Everyone who believes you are human enough to have human rights and American enough to have constitutional rights raise your hand.

    Reply
    • 139. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 23, 2011 at 10:24 pm

      Two hands raised here in Hope Mills, NC! Because we KNOW we are human enough and American enough to have our civil rights and to have them NOW!

      Reply
  • 141. LastMargret  |  January 4, 2018 at 4:25 am

    I have noticed you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra
    bucks every month because you’ve got high quality content.
    If you want to know how to make extra $$$, search for: Mertiso’s tips best adsense alternative

    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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

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

Please send tips to 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)

  • 4,585,337 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...