The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is a project of the Courage Campaign Institute, which is a part of the Courage Campaign’s online organizing network of more than 700,000 supporters in California and across the country.

Throughout the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker covered the trial live from the courthouse, all of the latest motions and court rulings, and documented and responded to right-wing attacks on the process. The Prop 8 Trial Tracker has attracted coverage from the New Yorker, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Atlantic Online‘s Andrew Sullivan, and dozens of various other media outlets and blogs. Prop 8 Trial Tracker is now the #1 Google search result for “Prop 8 Trial”. Check back throughout the Prop 8 trial for ongoing coverage of the trial as it happens as well as rapid response to right-wing organizations like Yes on Prop 8, the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family.

The Prop 8 Trial Tracker’s NOM Tour Tracker arm also documented and responded to National Organization for Marriage’s “One Man, One Woman” 19-state, 23-stop Summer Tour 2010 with blogging, photos and video from the road from our staff, generating coverage from news outlets around the country. Our response led to the decision of “One Man, One Woman” tour organizer and NOM strategist Louis Marinelli announcing in April 2011 that he had a change of heart on same-sex marriage equality as a result of the work Courage Campaign did on the tour. This led to feature pieces by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and in Newsweek. When National Organization for Marriage launched the “Vota Tus Valores” Tour in the fall of 2010 to support US Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, NOM Tour Tracker went back on the road, documenting how fewer than a dozen people showed up at nearly every single tour stop and refuting the lies of NOM’s spokespeople.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker’s lead contributor is Adam Bink, the Courage Campaign Institute’s Director of Online Programs, who manages the site and provides strategic and promotional support. Courage Campaign Institute’s Chair and Founder Rick Jacobs also contributes content, as does Arisha Michelle Hatch, Courage’s National Field Director. California-based bloggers Brian Leubitz, Brian Devine and Paul Hogarth contribute legal analysis and other content to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Bloggers Jeremy Hooper, Karen Ocamb, Matt Baume, and Rob Tisinai also frequently cross-post content on P8TT.

For inquiries related to Courage Campaign or our content here, please e-mail Adam Bink, the Prop 8 Trial Tracker site manager, at adam.bink@couragecampaign.org. Please also send tips our way at prop8trial@couragecampaign.org or follow us on Twitter @CourageCampaign.

LIKE WHAT WE’RE DOING?: With the U.S. Supreme Court blocking video of the trial from being released, it’s even more important that we continue to get the truth out to people across the country. To support our work live-blogging the trial and holding the right-wing accountable, please make a donation of any amount now. We can’t do this without you. Click here to contribute!

You can also sign up for our e-mail list, and check out our other work around equality and other issues, at www.couragecampaign.org.

If you have a comment for our team, please share it below.

62 Comments Add your own

  • 1. lewis  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I would like to read about this and stay informed but somehow the blog seems to be written for those already familar with the issue and trial and various people involved with it.
    My partner and I have considerd getting married or a civil union so we’re obviously in support of gay marriage, but I’m having trouble understanding the blog which seems to be a sort of stream of consciousness with assumed common knowledge on the reader’s part.
    I’ll give you an example with my notes in parentheses:

    After a big back and forth, the Ron Prentice (who is Ron Prentice?) ad (what is the ad? Is there a link to it?) that says that if California loses on Prop. 8, family will be destroyed, we’ll (who is “we”?) go off the rails. It has a nice looking black guy talking about the bible and about not being afraid. Stand up for Jesus Christ. He stood up for you in a public forum; now you stand up for him. (starting with “stand up for jesus” and ending with “…stand up for him” – is this the voice of the ad, or is the person who is blogging also a born-again christian and making his or her own personal statement about god? confusing) (I had not seen this. It’s a longish video that shows the forces of God fighting the judges. It has the scary music.)

    Boies (who is Boies and who is he or she speaking to?) : How did you feel, especially seeing that last line?

    Objection by the other side because it’s not been produced by Protect Marriage dot com. (Was this an actual quote and/or a response to the the question by Boies?) So now they are upset that our side is showing what the other side really wanted to do. They only want to show these ads when no one can talk about them publicly. (Who is “they,” “our side,” and “the other side”? I’m confused if this is the voice of the blogger or if this is part of a quote that the person responding to Boies said)

    Not to sound overly critical but the entire piece goes on like this hith a combination what I assume are quotes spoken in court being tangled with presumably the voice of the blogger, when, mixed in with the various names and facts with which I have little familiarity, make the entire thing a confusing mess.

    Sorry, I’d like to get informed and support gay marriage in any way I can, but this blog just overwhelms and confuses me.

    • 2. Mykelb  |  January 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      Wow, you are one misinformed gay.

      • 3. Susan  |  July 8, 2010 at 10:14 pm

        Instead of criticizing the man, why not answer his questions or give him the address(es) to websites that would give him the information he wants and needs? Never give someone a hard time or call someone names “one misinformed gay” for seeking to further their knowledge. Shame on you!

    • 4. Alex  |  January 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm

      Such is the problem with the trial being private. It doesn’t seem like any source you’d be able to go to would be able to give you access to all the information being provided in court.

      I might recommend not going to a “live” site, where they are just trying to recount as quickly as it happens what’s going on, but another site that would have one or more articles summing up the day.

    • 5. wu ming  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:07 am

      for starters, it’s worth reading wikipedia’s page on the trial.

      • 6. Rhonnie  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:58 am

        That’s for the wiki post. It is helpful for a general overview. <:o)

    • 7. ALQ  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

      To begin with, it is vital to get a background of the case in order to understand what’s going on. The fact that you don’t know who Boies is (he’s the attorney who argued for Gore in the 2000 presidential election case and is now working with 2000 Bush attorney and friend Olson to fight against Prop 8) shows a lack of basic knowledge of current events. Knowing who the players are is really important to understanding what’s going on, especially if you are trying to get further information from a site such as this – a site that does what it can to give readers the ability to follow the trial as closely as possible.
      I would recommend doing some research on the issue and using an editorial-esque site that doesn’t try to give readers a detailed look as to what’s going on with witness examination and cross-examination. There are a few decent places to get such information, after the trial day is over. For example, NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter has been giving a summary/opinion piece on the trial after each day he’s gone. I would recommend this.
      In any case, I wish you luck with following the proceedings. Without background information, following the trial with a site like this will be near impossible.

    • 8. Christine  |  January 22, 2010 at 9:40 am

      You must start by understand the law. ‘

      You must understand the proposition process and that law – litigation.

      This website has not been prepared as a legal tracker. But you can begin to understand the legal process by reading and asking questions about the original complaint.

      Lawyers don’t “do fabulously” they are lawyers who argue and write legal arugmentation persuasively but within the confines of the law – procedurally.

      It is important to understand that this is not a regular lawsuit – it is an injunction asking for relief based on a US code. That means it goes fast.

    • 9. William  |  April 12, 2010 at 9:39 am

      I agree completely with this post. I’m an informed gay, but also lost track of where things were on the Prop 8 trial, which is what this blog is supposed to be about. I thought we’d be close to the point where closing briefs were filed and the case would go to the judge for a decision. Is there a place on this home page where you can actually get an update or timeline on the status of the trial?

  • 10. Andy  |  January 11, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    I imagine it must be difficult to liveblog a trial in process. The most we can hope for I suppose is a good, detailed summary at the end of the day. In the meantime, start googling this stuff and doing a little research to familiarize yourself? I’m sure all of this can be found online.

  • 11. rebecca  |  January 12, 2010 at 10:34 am

    I agree with Andy. There’s no way Rick could be giving detailed descriptions of everything and everyone for those who may not be familiar, as he is reporting on a trial that is currently live in progress. I’m actually amazed that he is able to post what he has – this is quite a feat!

    You should definitely do some research online to familiarize yourself with all of the players and the background about this trial. Having that background will really help you understand what is going on and there is a lot of information online. Just google “Perry v. Schwarzenegger” and you’ll find tons of information.

    Here is one interesting article about the Plaintiff Attorneys (Olson & Boies), both of whom are Republican, and their motivation to represent the Plaintiffs in this trial.


  • 12. robert  |  January 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    rick, you’re doing a good job. I am so glad you decided to do this. It’s hard work and you may wonder if it’s worth it. Believe me, it is. I’m familiar with the case and I’m reading the Chronicle’s stories but I’m really glad I stumbled on your blog. It’s invaluable. thanks so much….robt

  • 13. Lamar Kerley  |  January 13, 2010 at 5:57 am

    You go for it. Injustice and bigotry cannot stand the light of day. They are like vampires, only albe to live in the darkness of conspiracy and secrecy.

  • 14. Courtney in Texas  |  January 13, 2010 at 7:41 am

    I’m reminded of a very famous quote:

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
    ~Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    Letter from Birmingham Jail
    April 16, 1963

  • 15. Wayne Renardson  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    When I earned my American citizenship, I had to pass tests on the principles of American democracy, one of which was the notion of ‘open’ trials to insure a sense of fair play and justice.

    The US Supreme Court today stood that notion on its head, closing the hearing to those of us unable to attend the hearing but interested in the outcome.

    I am reminded of a line from the McCarthy hearings spoken by Joseph Welch:

    “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

    As an American, I am ashamed.

    Wayne Renardson

  • 16. Dflores  |  January 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    I like the feed you have going here…is it possible to share/post on Facebook or other social networking sites?

  • 18. mom  |  January 14, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Just thanks.

  • 19. Happy  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:03 pm


    http://www.mercurynews.com has a Prop. 8 trial tracker that’s pretty well updated, with a box called the Prop. 8 Trial Primer, which lists the key players and issues at stake in the case.

    Search “Prop. 8 Trial” on the mercury news website and choose Live Coverage from the Courtroom for everything involving the Prop. 8 trial. Day by day coverage (updated throughout the day each day) as well as that Primer box can be found as you scroll down the Live Coverage page…

  • 20. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    The tracker is great and I am grateful to be able to visit throughout the day for updates. That said, I am confused. Are the contributors in the court? Does the court allow live blogging/PDAs or are you in a broadcast room. I’m trying to understand the obstacles placed on your transcript. Could you characterize how much you’re paraphrasing? (Not to criticize, but to better contextualize.) How horrible that these proceedings are not public.

  • 22. Harriet Forman  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:05 am

    I’m just logging on for the first time. My wife and I were married Feb 20, 04, when the Sandoval County, New Mexico, Republican County Clerk issued marriage licenses for same gender couples. She saw nothing in the New Mexico constitution barring this, and had a true conservative approach. We were married at the Courthouse, then again in a religious ceremony at Temple Beth Shalom in Santa Fe. This entire experience was the most wonderful, joyous experience in my life. We were written up on the front page of the New Mexican newspaper and received only best wishes, appreciation for being out and shared joy. Everyone knows what marriage is; everyone recognizes committment; our straight friends felt our marriage strengthened theirs! Thanks for covering this trial: we hope for the best. (P.S. We’ve been together 28 years now, and our love grows every day.)

    • 23. Jeff Baily  |  July 4, 2010 at 5:11 am

      That’s great you had your ceremony, but unfortunately you were not legally married, the State of NM governs marriage licenses, so municipal govts. can do what they want but the paperwork eventually needed to go back to the state for approval, and thus your marriage license was never recognized for the full benefits on the state level, which is what people were fighting for at the time. There was a breakthrough the previous November in 2003 when Massachusetts legalized it for real. This move by the highest court in MA eventually paved the way for what’s going on now, and eventually NM will have it too, so hold tight, you’ll be legal one day in NM, good luck!! :)

  • 24. Rhonnie  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Congrats Harriet to you and your wife. I’ve been married to my husband (man) for 23 years in April and together for 26 1/2 years. I would like people to have the same thought as you in that marriage is about a union of 2 people (and friends and families), not about sexually orientation. We can only hope that this trial etc. opens peoples’ minds and hearts to the same. <:o)

  • 25. Mike  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:58 am

    How do I catch up on the trial?! The blog only dates back to day 3, I want to start with day 1 but I dont see it anywhere!

    • 26. couragecampaign  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 pm

      did you find it? Look on the home page. I think it’s there now.


  • 27. Quinn  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Isn’t there a feed available from the court reporter? It’s hard to follow the with just paraphrasing. Or, can’t we send in our own reporter? I’m not up on this court’s rules, but when I used to work for a law firm, we would dial in via the web to watch live verbatim court transcripts. Thanks!

  • 29. Hugh Yeman  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Thank you to those who responded politely to lewis. Say what you will about his “basic lack of knowledge” but at least he’s trying. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans know nothing about this case, and don’t care to. We should be encouraging people who show an interest, not stroking our egos by sanctimoniously smacking them down.

  • 30. Wayne Renardson  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:18 am

    HY> We should be encouraging people who show an interest, not stroking our egos by sanctimoniously smacking them down.

    Thank you. My wife is a very alert citizen who does a fine job of staying abreast of current issues. I have been married to her for nearly thirty years and she is a very smart, caring person. But unaware of Prop 8, as are most people in the south.

    We happen to be heterosexual but I believe the issue to be one of human rather than sexual preference rights. I have time to consider issues while my wife is occupied with more serious endeavors, which may be the case with many others. Including Lewis, the OP.

    Wayne Renardson

  • 31. Christine G  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    I design legal relational databases. My database has a similar name, as to your website.

    I don’t think it is legally proper for your organization to call the officers of the court, “players” in particular a judge.

    On the SFGATE and NYTIMES I objected to the trial’s broadcast on the basis that the trial is not a tennis match or sporting event, or theater.

    The elements of the law are that which come into focus through the trial. There are facts originally in dispute but now at the appellate level are not. What is of issue before the court are the laws of procedure and whether in the case of the Proposition, all the underlying laws that protect all citizens of the US and visitors, were adhered.

    Please remove the “players” and identify the counsel as counsel, the trial presiding bench judge for the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then please designate the issues of the case. The organizations are the parties of the case, and they are represented by counsel.

    What I would like to advance is the law and the understanding that this appeal is a civil procedure code of for California driven case, not about personalities. This is not about the personal backgrounds of any of the people involved.

  • 32. Christine G  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    The case information is available through the US Court website and Pacer. Pacer is very restrictive. Somehow, in this case, the documents have been made available as they might be in PACER. All the documents, every filing in the case are filed with Pacer. Pacer is a fee based court filing service.

    The case is not with the 9th Circuit, but with the 4th District Federal Court, and it is an injunction, seeking relief from proposition 8. The two legal authorities for the injunction cited are the 14th Amendment for due process and equal protection, which has been divided as if it were two separate laws, which it is not, in the complaint, and the US. Code 42 USC Section 1983. The other laws the case argues are the family code of California.

    This blog is not really tracking the progress of the injunction. Injunctions that ask for Declaratory relief are processed very quickly.

    But while this certainly is an 14th amendment issue, it seems more to be in the category of a suit against the people who voted the measure in rather than the actual proposition.

    I would think that the entire legal process of the proposition comes into question, which is why I don’t think this is the proper venue for the base. I think this is case is about the procedurally defective nature of proposition processes, not the actual result of proposition 8.

    None of the arguments are new in this case.

    The case is CV 09 2292. To obtain the original complaint and answer, travel to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/.

  • 33. Christine G  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983

    § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
    How Current is This?
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

  • 34. Ariel  |  January 22, 2010 at 8:54 am

    The case information is found at

    see https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

    it breaks down why the case is filed in a Federal District Court, 2) the two legal authorities for which the case stands, and the alleged violations of those two legal authorities by the defendants.

  • 35. DCH  |  January 22, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Are there any indications of how much longer the trial will continue? Are we looking at another week? Two?

    • 36. couragecampaign  |  January 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      As Julia posted on Friday, the trial will continue on Monday and Tuesday and then closing arguments will occur about a month later:

      “Due to this break, it is likely that Judge Walker will not take much time after the closing arguments to issue his ruling. So we should expect it in late Februrary or early March”

      — Eden w/ Courage

  • 37. Christine  |  January 22, 2010 at 9:48 am

    wikipedia is to be avoided at all costs.

    It has no peer review and it is absolutely biased.

  • 38. Patrick Regan  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Just curious? Can the Keynames/players page be updated to show the other “expert” witnesses the defense is using? We can only see Blankenhorn.


  • 39. Kevin Stone  |  April 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    I think that Proposition 8 is a disgrace and unconstitutional to our civil rights. Whatever happened to equal rights for all-whether you are gay, lesbian or non? To those who support the Proposition, you are to understand that taking away the right of freedom-such as marriage-is not your right to choose. That is again the privacy of others and in terms of using religion as a major component-REMEMBER SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! I hope that Prop 8 does get repealed and we create further laws that promotes Equality of all. Yes, I am Jewish but do not use my own religious beliefs to prove my opinion. I am a naturalist, NOT A PIGAMIST!!!!!!

  • 40. Patrick  |  April 27, 2010 at 11:33 am

    I don’t understand why the freely available http://MarriageTrial.com Prop 8 re-enactment videos are not prominently featured on this site, on the home page. A link to MarriageTrial.com isn’t even in the blog roll.

    You can grab YouTube video playlists for each of the 12 days of the trial from http://youtube.com/marriagetrial.

    Or you can display all the videos in one embeddable playlist player. You can grab the embed code here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=73FA1FC2084997A4

  • 41. fern  |  May 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    A community wants to remain a community therefore they do not want outsiders, same for minorities, Americans don’t like foreigners, nobody likes foreigners.
    This said I’m well traveled and have my share of being misplaced, but when one tries to support a cause he should not be insulted by those whose cause he’s trying to promote.
    Having known about the gay people for a long time not all but plenty are as bigoted as the bigots you’re fighting.
    And btw I could never get a green card because I never have been to high school or equivalent, so, what can I say about the endeavors of this US citizen on time square????
    I’m a Belgian back in Belgium where the gay community has same sex marriage.

  • 42. jason  |  July 27, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    On the Same day prop 8 passed so did ARIZONAS prop 102 forever changin our state constitution. Here is there webpage claiming victory http://yesformarriage.com/

    • 43. Jim  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:08 pm

      Jason, It won’t be forever, don’t worry. Once this case makes it to the Supreme Court, those amendments will be nullified.

  • 44. Michael  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Hello all,

    Does anyone know if and when Prop 8 or the like will be going to the federal supreme court?

  • 45. Showing Support  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    I just started a youtube site for Canada to upload videos letting you know we’re on your side… Hopefully it will catch on:

    Good luck! We’re routing for you up here!

  • 46. Raymond Fernandez  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    hey when the nom tour is over is there a way you can post stats of how many they got at each rally vs what we got. I know it would be very useful for ff4e and i’d be very thankful

    correct that i’m already thankful but it would still be very helpful since we have alot of contact with the protect marriage page (i’ve posting the score and i’d love to put up a recap since members of pm actively troll our group)

  • 47. Paulo  |  August 24, 2010 at 9:04 am

    I am hoping someone checks this thread today.

    For a tear jerker of a video please check out Towelroad.com

    They have video from Toronto showing a neighborhood coming together to protect a gay family from harassment by a bunch of religious bigots. This is what neighbors do when they have gay neighbors. Mine would do the same.

    Please take a look.

  • 48. ՊԱՅԾԱՌաՏԵՍ  |  October 5, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Great job, folks! Thank you so much! I admire your work, accept my compliments and support from Transcaucasia.
    Light, Love and Peace!

  • 49. Jeffrey Davis  |  October 11, 2010 at 7:31 am

    I noticed that you track NOM and its involvement, possibly illegally, in political campaigns, such as Carly Fiorina’s bus tour in California. I’m glad you called them on it, and noted that they removed the offending evidence from their website.

    But please note, there is still a press release noting that NOM “warned” New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate John Lynch about supporting same-sex marriage. I would think opposing a candidate is as much a violation of their tax status as supporting one. You might want to do a screen capture of that press release before that, too, is scrubbed.

    I don’t think NOM has much of a future, given the legal losses in hiding its funding sources but anything that hastens the demise of this despicable organization is welcome!

  • 50. fand  |  October 24, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Retired Judge & family law expert Donald Knight has just submitted a powerful Amicus brief for the Plaintiffs-Respondents. In a mere 23 pages, he demolishes every contention of the Appellants. His argument is based on actual California Law. Everyone who is interested in this case should read this! Document 150. (Available free on Justia, if you can stand Scribd.)
    (He also submitted a passionate post-trial brief in January.)

    • 51. fand  |  October 24, 2010 at 12:43 pm

      My apologies: The judge’s name is Donald B. King.

  • 52. Paul  |  November 15, 2010 at 11:52 am

    I think this is a website with great potential, but it is confusing to navigate…. Most important, it does not give updates on the ACTUAL Prop 8 appeals trial.

    • 53. fiona64  |  November 15, 2010 at 11:57 am

      Um, Paul? There’s no update as yet. Arguments are scheduled for Dec. 6.

      Welcome to the fun!

  • 54. ebohlman  |  November 26, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    One editorial request: When posting a PDF, please also include a direct link to it as well as a Scribd interface. A few of us are still using desktop computers with PDF readers that we have set up to our own preferences.

  • 55. ben  |  December 11, 2010 at 9:31 am

    just a quick correction: You “blogroll” section has a link to the “good as you [G-A-Y]” blog, but the URL is incorrect.

    URL you’re using: wwww.goodasyou.org

    correct URL: http://www.goodasyou.org

    You have an extra “W” :)

  • 56. mike weber  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Hey, you should give a shout out to the economist and encourage people to visit it this week and vote!


    Interesting debate going on between Maggie and Evan Wolfson.

  • 57. Jessy  |  January 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    I am very much so against discrimination of all kinds whether it be toward gays, lesbians, black or white (or any where in between). Although I do not think prop 8 is right I am so confused! I know it is so wrong to tell anyone who they can love and what they can do but I am southern baptist and of course we all know what the Bible says… but I really would like for someone to NICELY explain to me how I am suppose to be ok with it completely… I want to stand up for what I believe is right but I am concerned…. my heart tells me that this is the most disgusting law I have ever heard of and to get involved and do something to help… while my mind is saying that it goes against my religious views… can someone please explain to me how to justify this? I am so open minded and hate to even sound like I am against prop 8! Please dont be offended any of you my Best Friend is a lesbian and her and her partner have a 1 year old little boy whom I adore.

    • 58. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm

      No worries Jessy…as Christian who happens to also be Gay I can understand your delema. I would suggest you examine the passages in the Bible you believe to be in conflict with your heart and mind over this issue. From there you can research how over the centuries ‘scripture’ as been altered, rewritten, reinterpreted, and just plan misunderstood……much of the origonal text of the Bible was written in several different languages and therefore are open to all sorts of misunderstandings and faulty transcriptions.
      I would also look at how selective your religion is as to what parts of the Old Testement law they abide by and what parts they have altered, or chosen to ignore as society and civilization have moved forward.
      People are always quoting Lev 2 regarding the abomination of men laying with men…but a little research will show you the error of those beliefs.
      I will try and put together a couple different sources and links for you and post back again later.
      Thank you for being here and for having an open mind.

      Mark M

  • 59. Leonard Erickson  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    You’ve got a problem with the framing code on the site (at least the trial tracker items.

    I have to crank up the font size to read things comfortably (in firefox, hold down the control key and roll the scroll wheel on the mouse thru several size increases).

    “included” text such as the Courage Campaign letters in the New Hampshire item and the Diane Feinstein letter in the item below it have text truncated at the edge of the frame rather than wrapping around properly.

    The vlipping is minor in the latest two, but there were a few items last week where a number of words at the right sight of the text were missing.

    I can’t crank the text size down small enough to eliminate the truncation of last weeks items. Not and be able to read them at all.

    Someone really needs to find the error in the code as this is a major accessibility problem.

    Thanks for the site.

  • 60. Leslie W  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:31 am

    This blog is called “prop8trialtracker” but it doesn’t seem to track it thoroughly.

    There has been activity at the Calif Supreme Court in the last week or so on the Prop 8 case, the filing of letters, requests, and responses to those letters and requests but this site doesn’t mention or analyze the activity for us.

    It just seems this site doesn’t live up to its name and we have to go elsewhere to “track” the “Prop 8 trial.”


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