Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

294 Pages To Equality

Uncategorized

by Brian Leubitz

The AFER legal team has filed their summary of the Prop 8 trial. All 294 pages of it. Officially titled the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the document lays out what the plaintiff’s believe they have proved and the findings that they believe are in order. Here’s the gist:

The trial proved that:

  • Prop. 8 does irreparable harm to Americans
  • Marriage has shed discriminatory restrictions over time
  • Gay men and lesbians are entitled to the full protection of the 14th Amendment
  • There is no good reason for Prop. 8’s denial of fundamental civil rights

Much of this information was laid out at the final courthouse press conference at the end of January. If you didn’t get a chance to see that, it is at the bottom of this post.

Look, what this comes down to is what we have known for years. Those who oppose marriage equality do it either out of fear, tradition, or religious reasons. We all disagree with that, but for many (but not all) these are sincerely held beliefs. And while I sincerely hope I will see that number dwindle markedly during my lifetime, I know that these people exist. If they choose to discriminate against gays and lesbians in their churches, that is their right. At your church, you need only marry those whom you wish. Heck, I’m not sure if an equality focused body like the MCC Church would want to be forced to marry two people any more than the Mormons would.

But as to the law, the law is on our side. Fear, tradition, and religiosity are not valid reasons under the law to discriminate. As the Prop 8 team’s own “expert” witnesses admitted, marriage would benefit LGBT families, their children, and even the nation.

“We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before,” Blankenhorn wrote.

He said Tuesday he still holds that view, and also believes that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would probably be good for the couples and their children. (SF Chronicle)

As to the general facts, we all know them. Their one non-religion based argument, “think of the children…marriage is for the children,” has never made sense. Marriage has never been limited to procreative unions, otherwise we would require fertility tests before a marriage license was granted.

Yet, the evidence the plaintiffs presented in the case clearly shows the harm that Prop 8’s marriage ban has caused. It stigmatizes LGBT couples, creates multiple classes of Californians, and generally treats different people unequally under the law.

The facts, the law, the morals. They’re all there for anybody to see. But, the question that now remains is whether our judiciary is willing to see the facts for what they are.

Justice isn’t always swift or easy. We have to fight for it every step of the way. This case is just one small step along a much longer journey. As David Blankenhorn alludes to, America is a profoundly good nation, with a deep sense of social justice embedded in our law, our Constitution, and our definition of what it means to be an American. We haven’t always done right at the time we should do right. But we always struggle to overcome injustice. And, Prop 8 is an injustice of the highest order; it will be remedied.

The question is just how long it will take us to become “more American.”

180 Comments

  • 1. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Thank you Brian. Once again, we see that there is no logical reason to deny this.

  • 2. Dick Mills  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:55 am

    One question I have had throughout the entire trial, is if the pro prop 8 camp is truly convinced of their case, then why didn't they ever make the argument that the 18,000 existing marriages are invalid. They could have filed a federal suit entirely separate from this case, and could have challenged those 18,000 marriages… but they not only did not, but all throughout this case, they have remained quite about them.

    I suspect that their inaction is mostly due to the fact that they never wanted this federal challenge, and seriously feared the likely outcome. Of course, that's just an opinion, but one would think that the zealots would have been more than willing to challenge those marriages in court, if they felt that they could win.

  • 3. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Yeah, America is a nation with a deep sense of social justice embedded in the law, but not in people's souls and minds. Otherwise this would have never happened, we would have never had to fight this fight. The law, the one with all that sense of social justice embedded in it, does not protect us, GLBs, from bigots' discrimination simply because the majority does not want to make the law work. There is no real issue about defining or redefining marriage, there is only the supremacy of those who decide which part of law should be enacted, and which should be forgotten. Think about it: some US states still have sodomy laws in their Criminal Codes, they are just not enacted… Why keep 'em? This mentality that some laws are just for fun and are not real, not something that should be taken seriously or enacted, — this mentality is a significant part of the problem, it shows how little respect people [bigots] have to the laws of the land and to the ideas of social justice embedded in those laws! Shame on them! Shame!

    I, for one, always believed, still believe, an will always believe that the law is above me, social justice is above me, I am not the one who should decide anything for others. If I don't like something simply “just 'cause,” it doesn't give me, or any major part of people who think like me, any right to forbid that something for no good reason and make some people's lives miserable. Social justice is above us! The freedom is only real when everyone enjoys it. And anyone of us will truly be free only when we all are free!

    –Kirill, Russia

  • 4. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:13 am

    I tink the another reason they didn't or even couldn't challenge those marriages is because some of them were from out of state…and I don't think those marriages would be affected…but I'm not a lawyer so this is JMHGO…..<3…Ronnie

  • 5. J. Stone  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Dick,
    marriage is a matter left to the states to determine and regulate as they will, provided that those determinations/regulations do not violate the federal constitution. There would be no basis for a federal judge to invalidate the 18,000 marriages between same-sex Californians; the question of those unions' validity was decided by the California Supreme Court, and their say is final in the matter.

  • 6. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:16 am

    I am only on page 40. I can't sit down and read the entire thing in one sitting. It is a great read, though, especially if you followed the transcripts. I can't wait for the closing arguments. Hopefully those are viewable to the public.

  • 7. RAY in MA  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:21 am

    "Justice isn’t always swift or easy."

    Justice would be an easy 'no brainer' here, if it weren't for religious oppression and ignorance and greed and power mongers and…

    … how can we possibly be proud of that part of America?

    Be careful when you say you are "Proud of America".

    Shouldn't we re-phrase it to:

    "America has a lot to be proud of." ?

  • 8. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:26 am

    During the trial with the CASC, one judge made it clear that the wording was unclear about the status of the 18,000, particularly with the word "will." She (forget the name) said that since they were able to argue the meaning in court, it most certainly wouldn't be clear for the CA voters. Therefore, there was no good reason to invalidate the marriages from the passage of Prop 8.

  • 9. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:35 am

    I am just so very glad that Olson and Boies stepped up to the plate on this one. We are in the best possible hands, I think.

  • 10. fiona64  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Oh, they made that argument, all right. However, in this country we do not have ex post facto law.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 11. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:02 am

    They are also using Blankenhorn and Tam quotes throughout, even in places or arguments where I didn't even think to allocate their testimony.

  • 12. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Despite all of the drama, the pain, the humiliation and degradation of having our very humanity debated in such a public and hurtful manner, we should all recognize how fortunate we are to happen to be alive during this time.

    And we should feel proud. That despite the repeated tramplings of our community, we get up. Every time. We get up and we fight on. AND WE LOVE.

    They HATE that more than anything else. That WE LOVE. Despite all of their efforts to prevent us from doing so WE STILL LOVE.

    THAT is what they TRULY want to destroy, though most won't admit that. But why else would they be fighting us every step of the way, and not just in terms of marraige equality, but in ALL our our quests to secure our basic needs. They WANT our lives to be the dark, painful, loveless lives they preach that we have. Yet I see an LGTB community that has a capacity to love like no other group I know. And I see a group of people that have strength, integrity, and are peaceful and gentle despite having being given absolutely NO REASON to be ANY of those things. We should be PROUD!

    I've always held that this has nothing to do with marraige in any way. It's just a 'no blacks or jews in MY coutry club' mentality. And this Prop 8 trial makes that a part of public record that can not be changed or edited. It's the beginning of eventual Federal protections, I believe.

    So, however this turns out, BE PROUD. We have reason to be!

    And always remember that in the end, we will win.

    This has been such an important event to be a part of. And sharing it with all of you guys has been something I will really never forget. Thanks to all of you who have made this web site a place of comfort and support.

    I love each and every one of you here!

    Bill

  • 13. Bolt  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:33 am

    My theory is that the shallow "legal" arguments used by the proponents of proposition 8 reflect the core of contemporary religion. The attorneys representing the religious corporate managers will say and do anything to protect the pathetic, vapid beliefs of the religious corporations that are paying them. Contemporary religion cannot exist without flamboyant homophobia, sexism, and the deliberate exploitation of these anxieties. Are legal experts the only individuals who can see how corporate religious bigots sexualize everything to scare people onto their side? This act is deliberate, raging homophobia!

  • 14. Paula  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:43 am

    and the other side is still coming up with new reasons to back up their arguments:

    In papers filed late Friday, lawyers for the sponsors of California's gay marriage ban offered new twists on their claim that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed could undermine man-woman unions.

    The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.
    http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.trial.2.1525

  • 15. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Unwed fathers abandon children because gay people can get married????????

    If you dry that one out, you can fertillize your lawn with it.

  • 16. Les Late  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Linda,
    I agree with you! I feel even better now after watching the Bill Moyers interview because now I can put a face and a voice with the names Boies & Olsen, and I can just imagine how the trial was even better than I was envisioning. Those men are so eloquent, and they are very very convincing from a legal standpoint… they leave me with no doubt the law will prevail and it will demand marriage equality.

  • 17. fiona64  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Yeah, 'cause no unwed fathers abandon their children *now.*

    Horse-puckey.

    Love,
    Fiona (who refers to Maury Povich's show as "Who's My Baby-Daddy" …)

  • 18. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:51 am

    What I wanna know is where is their proof that that is what Bisexuals want?…as far as I know the only people in the country who have requested multiple marriages are the original Mormons…..I have not met one Bisexual person who has said I want to marry a man and a woman….they are speculating and and ASSuming they know what goes though the minds of Bisexual people again proving that they thing they are mind readers

    That is why I have now dubbed then the "Gay Whispers"….<3…Ronnie

  • 19. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Amen, Bill!
    I mean… well, you know what I mean…

  • 20. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:52 am

    dang it…"Gay Whisperers"….coffee has not set in yet…I think I'll brew another pot…lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 21. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I would also add that this is about power. What I call the "anti-gay plank" unites several influential groups that normally don't get along or even despise each other. Organizations like NOM only exist to fight marriage equality, while organizations the Christian Coalition of America and Focus on the Family have it as a major part of their mission. What happens when the tide of the nation's moral zeitgeist turns against them? They fear the backlash, the loss of power – it will be interesting to see if they adapt and refocus on social justice, or become even more fanatical in their opposition.

  • 22. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Malawi launches hunt for gay personalities
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100228/wl_africa_af

  • 23. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:02 am

    You got to like this, from page 222

    Mr. Blankenhorn's opinion that permitting same-sex couples to marry
    would further deinstitutionalize marriage is not credible, reliable,
    or entitled to substantial weight. Mr. Blankenhorn's opinion lacks
    any actual basis, is inconsistent with Mr. Blankenhorn's writings,
    and is contrary to the opinions of other experts who testified, whose
    opinions are credible and reliable. Mr. Blankenhorn cited no evidence
    either of the potential for or the implications of
    deinstitutionalization as a result of allowing same-sex couples to
    marry, and he admitted that he had not conducted any scientific
    studies to support any of his opinions.

  • 24. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Brian, anyone…. There were three documents filed by Proponents late Friday night (2/26/10) I've listed the three below.

    Doc #604 Reply Memorandum to Amicus Submissions filed by Cooper 11:00 pm PST

    Doc #605 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Cooper at 11:03 pm PST

    Doc #606 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Cooper, at 11:05 pm PST

    Is there a way to view these filings by Proponenets (D-Is)?

    Thanks,
    Kathleen

  • 25. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:04 am

    It is obvious that they view us as so much less than human. The concept of us simply wanting a monogamous, loving, commited marriage with the 'one' person we love is beyond their ability to grasp. They don't want us to be normal. They don't want the general public to see us as normal; and so they come up with lie after lie, slandering our character, our morals, our integrity, just to keep the public fearful of us.

    Fortunately we have two well-known, well-respected and incredibly skilled attorneys on our side. They present our case so eloquently and lovingly that their simply is no arguing with them. They consistently bring the issue back to where it belongs–civil rights, and the fundamental right for all citizens (and legal aliens) of this country to marry the person of their choosing.

  • 26. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Oops–'there' not 'their'

  • 27. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Do they file these at the last possible moment to prevent our side from rebuttal? Once again it is obvious that they KNOW they really have no legal basis to deny us marriage; and they don't want the emptiness of their arguments exposed.

  • 28. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Because of some unnamed "thieves" broke in, this other stuff was discovered. I'd bet the farm that these "thieves" were hired by the government.

  • 29. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Page 222 of the file or page 222 of the document? The numbers are off slightly.

  • 30. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:16 am

    The rebuttal will be in closing arguments and questions by the judge. They also have to back up their findings with facts.

  • 31. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Actually, Linda, our side filed even slightly later. Both sides had a midnight deadline and it's pretty typical that these kind of documents are filed at the last minute.

  • 32. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Page 222 pf the PDF I downloaded. Section PFF 253.
    of the document.

  • 33. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Meant to add — the fact that D-Is don't make their filings readily available to the public might be because they don't want them read by the public.

  • 34. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Thanks. I'm only on page 110 of the file, but I'll take note of it for later.

  • 35. RAY in MA  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:22 am

    I think I happened to come across the answer to your question:

    "Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker requested the briefs summarizing the respective sides' evidence to help him prepare for closing arguments."

    from: http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.trial.2.1525
    (in the comment above)

  • 36. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:22 am

    One wonders if this is actually what they think since they keep saying that allowing Gay marriage is going to lead to fathers abandoning their children, and bestiality(barf)…and heterosexual divorce(really if you can leave your spouse that easily because 2 guys and 2 women can get married, then your marriage must not be that important to you and not very sturdy…I'm just saying)….<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ywCFyaYaI

  • 37. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I can't find these documents anywhere.

    They might eventually show up here, or presumably they will at least be put in the PACER system (described here), but it looks like one would have to pay to get the documents in the latter case.

  • 38. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Why is my comment awaiting moderation? My previous comment didn't say that.

  • 39. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Kenneth Starr, the attorney who represented the bigots in the state trial before the Supreme Court in California, DID request that the 18,000 marraiges that were performed be voided.

    The Supreme Court said no.

  • 40. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:36 am

    A law of bigotry:

    If no good reason exists, make one up!

  • 41. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Brian said in his post above Their one non-religion based argument, “think of the children…marriage is for the children,” … Marriage has never been limited to procreative unions, otherwise we would require fertility tests before a marriage license was granted.

    I would add to that the following:
    In California, g&l couples and individuals can adopt children. Prop 8 does nothing to change that. So if the "legitimate" purpose of Prop 8 was to make sure children are only raised in families with both a mother and a father, it clearly entirely missed the mark.

    In fact, the effect of Prop 8 with respect to children, is just the opposite. It harms children raised by g&l by prohibiting their parents from marrying.

    The point is: Even if plaintiffs didn't PROVE (remember we have the burden of proof) that there was no "harm to the children" or that marriage isn't tied to the procreating and/or raising of children, Prop 8 shouldn't even pass the lowest level of scrutiny. To do that Prop 8 would have to be "rationally related" to the stated purpose. I find it hard to understand how they could claim that.

  • 42. Kalibra  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:39 am

    ok ronnie, that was hilarious! but undoubtedly some hateros think that would be the outcome……to the rest of the population (the rational and sane among us) will see this is comedy
    Ed

  • 43. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:40 am

    While reading the PFF, I got to thinking. The only eral advantage we might have in regards to Walker's sexuality is the argument of sexual orientation as immutable and a fundamental aspect of a person's identity. (starts on page 134 of the file, page 128 of the document; section VI). Walker will have had personal experiences that he will be able to rely upon to determine the weight of each argument in this section (I have yet to read the D-I's report, so who knows what they argued officially?). I don't think, however, that it will play a critical role in the rest of the case. The personal identity argument is the only one that will go right to the heart of the judge, and that is the only "bias" that can be seen in this trial. However, it will give him the opportunity to self-reflect, which will benefit us down the road. That doesn't change the rest of the case, in my opinion, because that is the only argument that would tear the judge apart from his ruling, if he decided to make the argument that being gay is mutable and not a part of the core identity.

  • 44. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:42 am

    That point was made in the PFF. I don't remember the page, but I believe they had a whole section devoted to children.

  • 45. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:43 am

    You had more than 1 link. You can have 1 link and it will go through, but they moderate posts with more than 1 link to make sure it isn't spam. We've encountered this for the last few weeks.

  • 46. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:44 am

    @ JPM – I think if you try to post a comment with more than one link in it, it gets moderated.

    It's definitely in the PACER system, that's how I know they were filed and the document numbers. I subscribed to a listserve that notifies me whenever there's a new filing.

    I keep hoping Justia will update their site: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/cas
    but as you can see, hasn't been an update since Feb 12 and I know there have been many filings since then.

    Anyone here who can afford to pay for the filings through PACER and make them available to everyone?

  • 47. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:47 am

    All the more reason to laugh at them….preferably right in front of their faces with popcorn..while we watch them destroy their own marriages….hehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 48. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Alan, I'm sure Ps attorney made the point — just wanted to articulate it here for those who won't be reading the legal docs. There are a lot of people reading this site who don't post, some of whom side with D-Is on this issue. I figure it never hurts to try to clarify the arguments in condensed form.

  • 49. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Thanks, Kathleen. I keep forgetting that this is like a good game of chess for our attorneys. :)

  • 50. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Alan–I had the same thought. I don't think it would necessarily be bias; he, hopefully, will be able to understand the point we make that we didn't choose our sexual orientation.

    Really, that's the whole argument right there. They say we have the right to marry, if we'll just give up this absurd ss attraction garbage and embrace opposite sex marriage. In their view, we're the ones being stubborn, not wanting to play by the rules but still wanting all the privileges of those who DO play by the rules.

    Having a judge who understands the immutability of sexual orientation will enable him to hear our argument without prejudice, I think.

    Just MHO; and I freely admit I know NOTHING about the judicial process!

  • 51. G.Rod  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Bill, don't assume too much – it may well fail on appeal or in the final appeal with the federal Supremes.
    But given your belief in the Court, this document appears to ariculate it well.

  • 52. Bob  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Right on Bill, I wanted to post something similar, but you're words are the perfect expression, uplifting us, especially in light of the posts the other day where we sunk to the level of their expectations for us, by saying hateful, and hurtful , things to each other in our chats.
    Our challenge is always to rise above the stereotypes bigots have of us. The end result of things like the pope raising his ugly head and roaring loadly that we are abominations, these things result in us taking on those beliefs to the extent that our own self loathing, is acted out in destructive and suicidal ways.
    Often only hurting ourselves, or lashing out in hatred to others.

    We need to learn the art of LOVE, and non violent communication, honoring ourselves and others. The other day I posted a web site,with the hopes of showing that their are young people out there who deal with these issues in a really positive way.

    Funny how things work, that post was the last one before the news of the suicide of Marie Osmonds son, which took up the remainder of the days chatter which quickly detiorated into hurtful things being said.

    Please go back to my post with a connection to http://WWW.Soulforce.Org, and check out the equality ride. scroll through and read some of the profiles of these young equality riders. I find their stories inspiring, enlightening, and they bring me hope for the future.( WARNING, X-RATED, HIGHLY RELIGIOUS CONTENT , DEALS WITH CONFRONTATION OF BIGOTRY AND LIES)

    But this is also a website that can connect us with resources or places to learn nonviolent communication, and for some of us this may be crucial to survival, They also have contacts for people with suicidal tendencies, support by people who are open and accepting most likely themselves part of our community. We can never have a shortage of options for those feeling despair and hopelessness resulting in narrowing of thought which sees suicide as an only option.

    I would be interested in hearing feedback of how many of us on this chat, have heard about this particular website and their response to religious oppression. Cheers Bob

  • 53. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:14 am

    I'm bisexual and I don't even want to get married to ONE person. LOL (been there, done that)

    I've always found it weird that people assume that because a person is bisexual, either (1) the person must want to be in a relationship with both a man and a woman simultaneously, or (2) that if the person's currently in a relationship with a man, they'll inevitably leave him to be in a relationship with a woman (or vice versa).

    Is it so hard to get one's head around the concept that being bisexual simply means that you can be attracted to people of either sex, not that you're a promiscuous person who wants to jump into bed with every person who crosses your path?

  • 54. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:15 am

    O.T…..but the clash of the Titans is about to begin….USA v. Canada for Mens Olympic Gold Hockey 2010…..BRING IT ON!!!!!!!……ok…B.O.T…..the clash of the Titans has begun…..The Hateros v. Equality & LOVE…..Love is good and good always vanquishes Hate and Hate is Evil…enough said……BRING IT ON!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

  • 55. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:19 am

    That should read "a promiscuous nondiscriminating person"

  • 56. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Kathleen–Exactly!! My girlfriend is bisexual; all that means is she COULD BE in a relationship with either gender. She has that capability. But it still boils down to love and COMMITMENT; just like it does for anyone else. She is no more likely to be unfaithful or promiscuous than I am. We have chosen each other; we have committed ourselves to each other. End of story.

    Again, it boils down to our 'normal-ness'. They want to deny us that.

  • 57. Bearchewtoy75  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:24 am

    "Prop. 8 does irreparable harm to Americans"

    Uh… is there a word missing there?

  • 58. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Straight Ally–I think they'll get more fanatical…to the point of alienating themselves from the mainstream of social conscience.

  • 59. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Thank you, Linda, for chiming in on my post. Ironically, as a bisexual person, I often encounter as much prejudice in the lgbt community as I do outside it. I so often get this attitude that if I'm in a relationship with a man, it's just because I'm afraid to admit my true lesbian nature and if I'm in a relationship with a woman, I'm just "curious" and will inevitably leave her for a man. My relationships begin and end for all the reasons other people's do – gay and straight.

  • 60. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:28 am

    My sister is bisexual out prefers men….and I have 3 cousin who are bisexual…1 female(17) and 2 male(20 & 26)…although I think the 20yo is Gay….but he will come into that on his own….<3…Ronnie

  • 61. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:35 am

    @Bearchewtoy – I don't think so. It's the generic claim in a civil rights case. The party show harm done by the law and it must be harm to a citizen of the USA (thus, someone entitled to the protection of the constitution).

  • 62. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:35 am

    that's meant to read: "The part must show harm"

  • 63. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:36 am

    and again, meant to read "The party must show harm"

    Is the third time the charm?

  • 64. Ed-M  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:38 am

    And that recognizing same-sex marriage rights will lead to bisexual persons seeking recognition of polyamourous group marriages is no more likely than banning same-sex marriage will lead to polygamous cults like the FLDS seeking recognition of "plural" marriages. In fact, as Ronnie states in #21 below, even less likely! For was it not the defense witness Blankenhorn who stated that a polygamous marriage is in reality several one-man, one-woman marriages???

  • 65. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:48 am

    I've never understood what sort of out of body experience motivated Blankenhorn to make that statement about polygamous marriages. I can't believe he really thinks that polygamy is justified by the kind of marriage he advocates. I suspect he viewed the cross examination as a debate of sorts in which his inflated view of his own intellectual prowess couldn't allow him to concede a point.

  • 66. Bolt  |  February 28, 2010 at 5:57 am

    That was clever; however, people can't marry their pets. The pets can't sign a marriage certificate!

  • 67. Ed-M  |  February 28, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I like the musical score for this trailer! It's the theme from "2012: The Apocalypse."

    Ronnie's right. Bring the popcorn!

  • 68. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Wait a paw print is not a signature?….lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 69. Brandon  |  February 28, 2010 at 6:28 am

    First time poster, long-time lurker. :-)

    Regarding the fee for PACER documents, check out this website: https://www.recapthelaw.org/

    That's a Firefox extension that will activate when you log in to PACER (sadly, you WILL need a PACER login to do this) and view the list of documents. If anyone else using Recap the Law has downloaded a particular document, you can get a free copy from their servers.

    If you're the first to request a particular file, well, you'd need to pay to download it from PACER, and then Recap saves a copy on their servers for anyone else interested to get it for free.

    Pretty neat-o stuff!

  • 70. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 6:39 am

    If it reaches this particular Supreme COurt, I do believe we WILL fail, this round.

    That wasn't my point.

    My point was that for the first time, we are creating FEDERAL PUBLIC RECORD of the inequality.

    That is, ultimitely, more important than 'win or lose' in regardings to the Prop 8 case alone.

  • 71. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 6:57 am

    @Brandon – that's a GREAT resource. Thank you!!

    Well, I bit the bullet and registered for PACER. Don't know if no one else has requested these docs or if my plug-in wasn't activated by the way I accessed PACER. Either way, had to pay for docs, but total for all three was less than $10. So figured I could afford that for the cause.

    I have these 3 docs. Anyone have a website they'd like to upload these to in order to make these available to the public?

    In the meantime, anyone who wants them can reach me through my facebook page (Kathleen Perrin – find me on the fb P8TT page); send me your email addy through a private message on fb and I'll email these to you.

    Love,
    Kathleen

  • 72. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:03 am

    "PFF 184: Gay and lesbian individuals have experienced and continue to experience discrimination in the United States. They have been executed for being homosexual, classified as mental degenerates, targeted by police, discriminated against in the workplace, censored, demonized as child molesters, excluded from the United States military, arrested for engaging in private sexual relations, and have repeatedly had their fundamental state constitutional rights stripped away by popular vote." (page 144 document, page 150 file)

    This is followed by 5 pages of support for this statement, where most other PFF's had up to a page for each finding. This statement alone could be a thick book in itself.

  • 73. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Plus, they reference 28 other pages of evidence in support of this one statement.

  • 74. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Bob, I went to the website and read every single profile of the Equality riders. I agree with you it is VERY inspirational, very up lifting. The most heartwrenching was the one from the young lady who after 6 years at her university and just about to graduate was kicked out because she is gay, or maybe bi i can't remember which. I also liked the young man who organized a day of silence in his high school although he was not supported by the school administration. I liked him a lot, he is now working in a coffee shop but has plans to go on to college. Each and every story was uplifting.

    Yesterday I wrote that I thought this generation would finish the job that previous generations started and built up. I sincerely hope that this generation, these young people, these Equality Riders together with their friends and families are the generation that breaks down the door of hatred. That my grandchildren will grow up in a better world. I don't want my grandchildren to have to fight this battle.

    I understand that this community on Prop8TT has many people who very resentfull, and with good reason, distrustfull of many mainstream christian religions. These young people at Equality Ride have reconcilled this issue for themselves and show how you can be a person of faith and also LGBTQ. This seems like a wonderful organization thank you for pointing us to it.

  • 75. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:40 am

    I am almost done reading the Summary and I disagree with you Bill, I think we will WIN!

  • 76. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:50 am

    I am sorry for writing all in bold. Apparently I don't knwo how to do it. I wnated jsut one word to be bold whihc was "this" as in this generation and then everything went to bold, geesh. I'l not try that again.

  • 77. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Straight G'mother – to format type, you need to use code to both OPEN and CLOSE (wrapped around the type you want formatted. The close code is similar to the open, but with a forward slash in front of the letter. See example here: http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlbold.php

  • 78. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:57 am

    LOL.. BTDT..resulted in a temporary little meltdown

    ONE LINK PEOPLE- ONLY PUT IN ONE LINK IN A POST OR ELSE IT WILL GET HELD UP FOR MODERATION.

    I wish someone would have put that in big capital letters for me earlier on, LOL.

  • 79. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 7:58 am

    So USA lost Gold to Canada 3 to 2 in just over 20 mins of overtime…(oh the jokes that can come out of this one)….you see Lauren Ashley shouldn't have upset the Gods…..bwaaaaaaaaaaaa……<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Right on Linda! Oops that dates me a little bit :)

  • 81. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Kathleen, how many pages is the D-I's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law? Our side's is 294 pages and it is a looooong read. I wonder if this is typical that they are always this long.

  • 82. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 8:22 am

    D-Is split their comparable filing into two docs:

    #605 Defendant-Intervenors' Trial Memorandum (Including Citations) – 21 pages in the PDF doc.
    #606 Defendant-Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact (Including Citations) – 61 pages in the PDF doc.

  • 83. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Remember that our side has the burden of proof.

  • 84. Straight Grandmother  |  February 28, 2010 at 9:08 am

    page number on PDF File for the following is page 203 of Plaintifs Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
    Found on this link – http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/u

    I have a continued fear of what will happen on appeal with the whole filming incident, especially since the Supreme Court weighed in on the matter. Olson & Boies say that the D-I experts were pulled because they could not hold up to scrutiney of cross examiniation. I HOPE this doens't screw up the whole case. But read for yourself how they address the issue.
    Begin Quote-
    Proponents elected not to have the majority of their designated witnesses testify at trial. Proponents withdrew one of their designated experts before trial began and four
    other designated experts on the first day of trial. Indeed, Proponents waited until the morning of Monday, January 11, 2010—after the Supreme Court had already granted
    a stay of this Court’s order permitting broadcast of the proceedings—to announce in a two sentence letter that they “no longer intend to call as witnesses Dr. Paul Nathanson, Dr. Loren Marks, Dr. Daniel Robinson, and Dr. Katherine Young.”
    Although Proponents’ counsel stated in open court on Friday, January 15, 2010, that their witnesses “were extremely concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to
    appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever,” this assertion was entirely unsupported by any evidence at all and was not, on its face, credible.

    Proponents had notice of the possibility that the proceedings would be publicly broadcast as early as September 2009. In addition, the Court announced its decision to broadcast the
    proceedings on January 6, 2010, but the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of the Court’s order on January 11, 2010—before Proponents’ counsel sent a letter to all
    counsel withdrawing four of their experts. The Supreme Court issued its indefinite stay on January 13, 2010, and then this Court on January 14 withdrew this case from
    the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program, well before Proponents had even called their first witness. T

    Thus, from at least January 14 on, Proponents and their witnesses knew for a fact that these proceedings would not be broadcast to the public in any form. Proponents made no effort to call any witnesses other than Mr. Blankenhorn and Dr.Miller after the Court withdrew its request to broadcast the proceedings to other federal courthouses and made clear that no such broadcast would take place. Proponents’ decision to withdraw any of their experts was therefore a tactical decision unrelated to the Court’s decision to boadcast the proceedings to several other federal courthouses. Indeed, all of the experts withdrawn by Proponents made damaging admissions in their depositions, and Plaintiffs’ counsel predicted at the pre-trial hearing in December 2009 that Proponents would seek to withdraw their experts because of the vigorous cross-examination they had faced in deposition and would face at trial.
    End Quote

    I researched a little bit on all the D-I's experts that dropped out. The only one I thought was a threat was the former Prof from Georgetown University (Catholic University) who once in a while teaches in Cambridge UK now. I think I have those facts straight on him. He had very serious credentials. If I rmember right his expertice was the history of psychology and he has been a member and former President of the history section of the American Psychology Assoc, I prolly got that association name wrong but it is the same one our experts frequesntly quoted. I would love to see the depositions that he gave and what was in them.

  • 85. Alan E.  |  February 28, 2010 at 9:41 am

    The document mentions early on that the few supposed incidents of violence because of Prop 8 to the pro-h8 side pales in comparison to the violence and discrimination towards the LGBT community.

  • 86. Bry  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Does wanting to put Cat Ears on my boyfriend constitute beastiality?

  • 87. G.Rod  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Bob, thanks for the link, it's message was more uplifting that the Minister this morning.

  • 88. some girl  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I don't think Scalia, Thomas and Alito give a hoot about justice or fairness. When it comes to the right-wing fringe, we don't live in that kind of country any more. Those values are long gone. We torture people now. We hold people without trial now. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

    It all comes down to Kennedy.

  • 89. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Sadly, I think you're right.

  • 90. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:13 am

    @Kathleen

    There are five Kathleen Perrin's on facebook. Not having any luck finding P8TT.

    You can find my (slightly encoded) email address here

    Could you send me the docs?

  • 91. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:16 am

    there is actually a sexual orientation for that…they are called "Furries"….I saw it on the MTV TV show "Undressed" when I was in high school…apparently it is an actual thing…..<3…Ronnie

  • 92. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:31 am

    @JPM – I sent you an email. Let me know I got it right by replying and I'll send the docs.

    Anyone else having trouble finding me on facebook, go to the "Prop 8 Trial Trackers" facebook group (you should be able to search for that phrase in the fb search function) and then click on the link for my profile (Kathleen Perrin) there. I think I responded to a comment on the main wall, so should be able to find it there.

  • 93. Skemono  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Marriage has never been limited to procreative unions, otherwise we would require fertility tests before a marriage license was granted.

    Heck, more than that: some states (five of them, I think) allow first cousins to get married on the condition that they cannot have children (either they're too old, or one of them has a note from a doctor testifying to their sterility).

  • 94. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 10:52 am

    OMG!!!!!…..I just got done watching last weeks "Desperate Housewives"…….and "Martina Navratilova-Degeneres-The L-word ….the new chick/ex-stripper is a Lesbian…..did not see that coming….<3…Ronnie

  • 95. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Don't know if people here are familiar with the work of photographer Spencer Tunick. He's known for photographing people nude in public places. His latest project involved 5,000+ people on the steps of the Sydney Opera house in "the name of art and diversity today." http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/tho

    Tunick is quoted as saying,"Gay men and women lay naked next to their straight neighbours and this delivered a very strong message to the world that Australians embrace a free and equal society."

  • 96. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Spencer Tunick is a genius….I studied him and my Advanced Modern Art History class…the one in France….Biennale de Lyon i think….. it is was huge….<3…Ronnie

  • 97. jimig  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Thank you for the plantifs brief, do the defendants also file a closing brief? I was tring to see what they might be thinking. Or did I skip that in the postings.

    Interesting comments today. This may be the only time in my life I wish I knew more about the law and the process.

  • 98. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:21 am

    @jimig – I have copies of what the D-I's filed. See my post above about how to find me on facebook and send me a private message on fb with your email addy. I'll send them to you.

  • 99. JPM  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:31 am

    61

  • 100. Bill  |  February 28, 2010 at 11:38 am

    I think Walker will rule for us.

    I think the 9th circuit will, as well.

    But try as I might, I only count 4 votes in our favor when we get to the Supreme Court.

  • 101. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Don't discount the skill of our attorneys. They are masters at arguing their case.

  • 102. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    My girlfriend is always viewed as suspect in lesbian circles. She's too femme; they don't trust her. And if she says she's bi–well, they just see her as a straight getting her kicks.

    It amazes me how we can do that to members of our own community.

  • 103. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Ha! Groovy! :)

  • 104. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Linda, thank you so much for understanding. I was fighting back tears when reading your post. I think I don't usually acknowledge (even to myself) how painful these attitudes are for me.

  • 105. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Kathleen–it has been very difficult for Leslie (my gf) too. It really has bothered her. It was one of the things she brought up over and over in the early part of our relationship, just to make sure I understood who she was, and that it was okay with me.

    But honestly, it's not even an issue, as far as I'm concerned. What difference does it make? She picked me. :)

    And, of course, I think all those lesbians who brush her aside are idiots!

  • 106. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Linda…they're jealous thats all…..<3…Ronnie

  • 107. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Ronnie–Ha! That could very well be!

    I just think it's a shame that we, who are so adamantly opposed to being stereo-typed, turn around and do the exact same thing when members of our own community present themselves as being different. Aren't we all 'different'? And isn't that what binds us together?

    Don't let me get on my soapbox on this one!

  • 108. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Meredith Baxter Birney's speech at the HRC meeting:

  • 109. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Day 3, Parts 3 & 4 are up, and a new thread.

    Dieter, thanks for the leink ot Meredith Baxter's speech at HRC!

  • 110. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    sorry..still trying to figure out how to copy the link here…

  • 111. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I won't argue over a link. If it didn't show up you can find the link at advocate.com
    still having trouble figuring out why I can figure out how to copy paste some links but not others…

  • 112. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/2

  • 113. G.Rod  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Some girl, let’s assume Bill and you are right. How many years will it be before it his heard at the federal Supreme Court? Perhaps enough could happen to shift the dynamic.
    Bill, from what I have read, it’s hard to get a hearing once, but twice is rarity. It seems that the Court hears what individual judges find significant/interesting.

  • 114. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    That's okay. I knew Meredith had come out on the Today show in an interview with Matt Lauer, but this was good news that you posted about her speech at the HRC. Looking forward to watching that one. Just got through watching the Bill Moyer interview with Olse and Boies, and, just as another of our posters stated, it is obvious that we have the best lawyers on this that we could possibly have. And Moyers has always been an impartial interviewer. Of course, I have seen him tear into someone when he catches them in a lie or an evasion.

  • 115. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Dieter, I am still so ignorant of how to do it that what I usually do is just write it down on a piece of paper and type it in myself. It seems to be the only way that I can do it. I am just glad that you passed this news on to us. I was not being sarcastic, I was expressing honest gratitude for some news I had not yet heard.

  • 116. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    I think I finally got it..LOL..I never knew you could just use the search engine box to copy the link. It never occurred to me..I had always tried getting it from the news page itself. another poster alerted me as to how to highlight and then right click on the search box. makes life much simpler.

    the link should work, and it is an excellent speech.

  • 117. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I think stereotyping is a part of any and every community…but I believe ours is all inclusive…..I mean look at the full name of our community….LGBTQQI and now A…..where as the Hateros discriminate against anything and everything….Religion, Race, Age, Gender, Orientation, Skin Color, Hair color, Handedness(I still can't get over learning about that one)…but there's an actual scholarship for being left handed and doing certain things with your left hand…that's not fair…both of my parents are left handed and I was born right handed…where's my scholarship?…anyway I digress… I think stereotypes within our community comes from within…do I think its right?…absolutely not…but i think it just proves that we are human…. so I've think I said it all…I don't know…whatever….. if I'm a stereotype I just own it…people are always going to have their opinion of others….its up to you to either accept it or ignore it…. I choose to ignore it or simply talk over it….<3…Ronnie

  • 118. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    @ Ronnie,

    "Handedness(I still can’t get over learning about that one)…but there’s an actual scholarship for being left handed and doing certain things with your left hand…"

    Anything in specific? Being left-handed, there are quite a few things I can do with my left hand….um….just curious! ;`P

  • 119. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Dieter, the link did work, BZ and I just got through watching it, and thank you for the tip you just gave me on how to post a link. You just taught me something new.

    And for all those who have noticed I am late getting on here tonight: I just installed a new door lock and deadbolt on our front door after the old one (26 years old) first locked us out of the house, and then tried to lock us in! I keep doing things like this, I will never get my copy of the "gay handbook", LOL!

  • 120. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    LOL…Felyx….I know there are ones for drawing, painting, bowling(a kid in my high school got that one) another chick in my high school for serving a volleyball left handed…lol….some sports like field events such as discus, shot put, javelin…..<3…Ronnie

  • 121. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Hey Richard–know what I did today? I bought jumper cables and jump started my car! Whoo hoo!!! (scared my daughter to death; she thought for sure I was going to blow the thing up!) Ha!!!

  • 122. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    I also jump started my car for the first time this week. Little hint: after you connect the cables to the first car…NEVER let the other two cable ends touch..LOL..I should heal nicely soon…

  • 123. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    I actually had someone ask me one time if there was anything wrong with him being a bisexual man–he had actually been convinced that he was only confused. I told him that he was far from confused, and went on to tell him that he may have had the best of both worlds. I found it also made it a lot easier for him to understand where I was coming from, and he was really a good bridge in conversations with heteros who did not know how to treat gay men.

  • 124. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Ha! Now THAT'S the Dieter I've come to love!!!

    Well, one of the advantages to being female is I can play the 'gosh, I don't know how to do this' card at the auto parts store. :)

    The clerk came out and showed me exactly how to attach the cables; and he warned me about keeping those ends apart. :)

    Now, if I can just figure out how to replace the rear signal light…..sigh…..

  • 125. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    dieter – LOL that EXACTLY why I hate jump starting cars! I'm a journey"man" carpenter (did the union apprenticeship and everything) but I hate anything to do with electricity.

  • 126. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Linda, my son's an actor and once did a commercial that had him calling his girlfriend to come change his tire. He laughed about it — said he was being stereotyped because that's exactly who he is! I don't know how many times I had to show him how to check his oil!

  • 127. jimig  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Okay I just watched this and thought it was a joke please tell me it's not real. Love the anger they used to show their coping skills.

  • 128. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    @Linda–there is a panel in your trunk on each side that should very easily pop out to give you access to the receptacle that the bulb to the signal light is held by. Once you take that out, changing the bulb is a snap. And as far as being typecast, ask your son how big of a stretch it is for a recovering alcoholic to be cast as the town drunk? that is what happned to me when I auditioned for a local production of "Tom Sawyer–the Musical." I ended up playing Muff Potter in that, and had to face a murder trial. I won't lie to you, the little fellow playing my defense attorney was cute. But he was so YOUNG! I am old enough to be his father!

  • 129. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Thanks Richard!

  • 130. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    It's not real…but the Hateros obviously think it is….lol…..<3…Ronnie

  • 131. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    You see…every problem the straights have really is because the gays are getting married:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

  • 132. jimig  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Hi Kathleen, this was amazing I also watched the video of the project and the interview with Spencer Tunick, I really liked why he did it and what he had to say.

    yes of course I posted it to my FB. Funny I post things al the time normally people don't respond but this one has already ahd a few comments.

  • 133. Roy  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    the nefarious American Family Association is running a poll on their vile site…have everyone you know cast their vote…so they know we ARE watching THEM.. as they spread their lies and bigotry and hate. Help counter the ‘no’ vote tally there.
    http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147491735

    note too, on some of their links, the absolute garbage they insist on spreading.

  • 134. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    jimig – he's amazing, isn't he? I've been a fan of his work for years.

    check your messages on facebook. i need an email address to send you the docs. (don't post it here – send it through private message on fb)

  • 135. Anonymous  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    It is not an open poll…you have to give your information so that they can weed you out and harass you if they dont like how you voted….it is rigged! Look at the numbers, there is no way that is not rigged!!! Check out any real polls and you will see even the most conservative numbers are still WAY above what they are showing!!!

  • 136. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Maybe there can be a link posted to some other polls? Fe

  • 137. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Forgot to mention – there's a documentary on him titled "Naked World" It shows up occasionally on Sundance Channel and it's available at Netflix.

  • 138. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    This is great, Dieter; thanks!

  • 139. Linda  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Well, I suppose we could do our own poll, and only allow our votes to count.

    Geez! Can't they be honest about ANYTHING???

  • 140. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti

    Seems like a legit poll…..Fe

  • 141. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Here is another one that is less favorable. It however, is nowhere near as low as the AFA.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/25/milita

    I also just noticed that the AFA includes transgenders in the poll…..not something other polls asked!

    Still, the numbers are way too sketchy! <3 Fe

  • 142. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    LOl..hey people: This is a video of ME!!!

    performing for a television show when I worked at Micky's in west Hollywood…lol..oh the things we will do for a little attention…
    My very first attempt at impersonating CHER!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyJsbImsdQ

  • 143. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    I thought they were being perfectly honest about how self-righteous they are….does that count for nothing?!! <3 Fe

  • 144. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Meredith Baxter, in her speech at the HRC event, had a funny quip about the polls we discussed here earlier under the topic of how language matters.

    She cited the poll that showed that 70% of Americans supported "gays and lesbians" serving openly and the one that showed that 59% supported "homosexuals" openly serving. She then said, "I guess that means that about 11% of Americans aren't sure that homosexuals are gay."

  • 145. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Probably the same percent that thought Prop 8 was about 'protecting children'. People are so gullible…I know because someone told me so! <3 Fe

  • 146. Roy  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    well, you could do a fake email.. OR… use a bigots email..then THEY will get the 'how dare you vote yes' speech… since its autogenerated

    confuse the chit outta them

  • 147. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @dieter I LOVE IT

  • 148. Sheryl  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    I just used my junk e-mail. It is nice they give you the numbers of officials to call to let them know your feelings on the issue. so will take advantage of the info. But not the way they want.

  • 149. RebeccaRGB  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    @Ronnie Furrydom is not a sexual orientation. It's just a fandom of anthropomorphized animals in general. Sexuality is just one tiny part of Furrydom, as it is of any other community. Just needed to clear that up.

    Love,
    Rebeccat
    *meow*

  • 150. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:22 am

    A lil off topic but this is about DADT policy. There is a News Story About how Chaplins are complaining that free Speech will be affected by repealing the policy.

    I just want to counter act that and say
    that GLBT free speech is affected everyday that they cant tell the truth about their sexuality. I just cant believe Chaplins are harping on Free Speech when GLBT is forced to supress their own sexuality to be a part of the Military. Got to be kidding me chaplins

  • 151. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:04 am

    "I just failed my math test. Damn gays."

  • 152. Polydactyl  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Thanks Rebecca… furry here as well. It's not an orientation, it's a hobby with varying degrees of assimilation.

    … God I hate MTV and CSI for making us out to be a bunch of fursuit orgyists. What the hell.

  • 153. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:44 am

    This rant from Scalia's dissent:
    "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision" (bold added by me)

    Scalia is actually concerned that laws against masturbation (who knew there were any?) will be struck down? Really??

    Perhaps he should become just a wee bit less law abiding and he'd be a happier, more compassionate person.

  • 154. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Not to mention adultery and fornication immediately after that. Last time I checked, neither of those things was illegal. Maybe he should spend less time reading his Bible and more time reading the laws he's supposed to be ruling on.

  • 155. Straight Dave  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:53 am

    My count in SCOTUS is fairly confident in Breyer, Stevens(if he’s still there at the time), Sotomayor, Ginsburg.
    But Scalia, Thomas, Alito are probably lost causes. Roberts is iffy.

    Keep in mind that Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in both Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans. I don’t have his exact quote in Lawrence, but he added a bit of commentary into the official opinion that went something like “the times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws which were once thought necessary and proper, in fact, serve only to oppress.

    This was in the context of SCOTUS overturning their own decision made in Bowers v Hardwick a mere 17 years earlier. They don’t disregard precedents lightly, and the ink was barely dry on Bowers, in SC terms. They called themselves out and said flatly that Bowers was wrong, leading to Kennedy’s comment above. So I wouldn’t write him off quite yet.

    The other quote in Lawrence that I love, again paraphrased, was from Scalia’s dissent. He said something to the effect that this decision removed any remaining legal obstacles to same-sex marriage. He didn’t do this as a statement of support, but just to whine about the inevitable consequences he could foresee. How very prescient of him :-)

    My count in SCOTUS is fairly confident in Breyer, Stevens(if he’s still there at the time), Sotomayor, Ginsburg.
    But Scalia, Thomas, Alito are probably lost causes. Roberts is iffy.

    Keep in mind that Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in both Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans. I don’t have his exact quote in Lawrence, but he added a bit of commentary into the official opinion that went something like “the times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws which were once thought necessary and proper, in fact, serve only to oppress.

    This was in the context of SCOTUS overturning their own decision made in Bowers v Hardwick a mere 17 years earlier. They don’t disregard precedents lightly, and the ink was barely dry on Bowers, in SC terms. They called themselves out and said flatly that Bowers was wrong, leading to Kennedy’s comment above. So I wouldn’t write him off quite yet.

    The other quote in Lawrence that I love, again paraphrased, was from Scalia’s dissent. He said something to the effect that this decision removed any remaining legal obstacles to same-sex marriage. He didn’t do this as a statement of support, but just to whine about the inevitable consequences he could foresee. How very prescient of him :-)

    My count in SCOTUS is fairly confident in Breyer, Stevens(if he’s still there at the time), Sotomayor, Ginsburg.
    But Scalia, Thomas, Alito are probably lost causes. Roberts is iffy.

    Keep in mind that Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in both Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans. I don’t have his exact quote in Lawrence, but he added a bit of commentary into the official opinion that went something like “the times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws which were once thought necessary and proper, in fact, serve only to oppress.

    This was in the context of SCOTUS overturning their own decision made in Bowers v Hardwick a mere 17 years earlier. They don’t disregard precedents lightly, and the ink was barely dry on Bowers, in SC terms. They called themselves out and said flatly that Bowers was wrong, leading to Kennedy’s comment above. So I wouldn’t write him off quite yet.

    The other quote in Lawrence that I love, again paraphrased, was from Scalia’s dissent. He said something to the effect that this decision removed any remaining legal obstacles to same-sex marriage. He didn’t do this as a statement of support, but just to whine about the inevitable consequences he could foresee. How very prescient of him :-)

    The Lawrence opinion: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

  • 156. Straight Dave  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Sorry about my butchered cut-n-paste job in that last post. Here is Scalia’s actual quote (slightly edited for clarity) in his Lawrence dissent:

    “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” …. and if, …“when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution?”

    Indeed, Mr Justice! May your words come back to haunt you.

  • 157. Straight Dave  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Plus, Olson has an 80% success rate in arguing over 50 cases to SCOTUS. He knows what makes those guys tick and how to get through to them.

  • 158. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:06 am

    John, I was surprised to learn that there are still laws on the books criminalizing adultery (Michigan, for one), though they're rarely prosecuted.

  • 159. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Seriously? Regardless, gay marraige isn't going to affect any of those things, so his point is meaningless anyway.

  • 160. Prop 8 Trial Update ̵&hellip  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:41 am

    […] disprove all of the defenses' claims about gay marriage's alleged harm to society.  Brian Leubitz of the Courage Campaign neatly summarized the volumes of factual evidence: Here’s the […]

  • 161. fern  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:34 am

    "And anyone of us will truly be free only when we all are free!"
    or the freer you are, the freer I am.
    La liberté est fonction d'altérité – Michel Bakunin –
    Another Russian I guess (smile).

  • 162. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:49 am

    @Kirill, you said "Think about it: some US states still have sodomy laws in their Criminal Codes, they are just not enacted… Why keep ‘em?"

    If what you mean by sodomy laws are those which prohibit ss sexual activity, it's not just that prosecutors choose not to enforce them, their present legal status renders them unenforceable (since 2003's Lawrence v Texas). In the case of laws which remain on the books after being held unconstitutional, it's often just a matter of the legislator not having "cleaned up" the statutes.

    But I certainly wholeheartedly agree with your sense of outrage at the lack of justice.

  • 163. Caitlyn  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:22 am

    "But try as I might, I only count 4 votes in our favor when we get to the Supreme Court."

    It's pretty sad that that's the reality of our supposedly unbiased justice system, that we can easily predict who will vote what on any given measure before they've even heard any evidence…

  • 164. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:52 am

    @Straight Dave
    I wonder what Scalia will say now — he already said there is no good reason not to institute same-sex marriage.

  • 165. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

    You’ve got to be kidding! What, are they claiming that they can’t preach hate from their pulpits? boo hoo. But seriously, ALL fundamental rights are restricted when you’re in the military, including those involving speech and religion. If you’re not wiling to live with that, you shouldn’t join the military.

  • 166. Sheryl  |  March 1, 2010 at 11:02 am

    “You see…every problem the straights have really is because the gays are getting married”

    Hey, does this mean I can blame my financial woes same sex marriage?

  • 167. jimig  |  March 1, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Chaplins to my understanding give up a lot of free speech rights. They are called to provide all kinds of services that may or may not be part of there belief system. How dare they speak out, it is wrong and they should all be held accountable.

  • 168. jimig  |  March 1, 2010 at 11:37 am

    I had to stop reading them my head started hurting. It is really a recap of what they have been saying, a few good pionts. I am still worried they do have a piont on history and traditional views. I keep reminding myself that not to long ago mixed relationships were against the law and not allowed in any country and tradition was against them.

  • 169. jimig  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I am making my way through the plaintifs agruements. It's very interesting, I can't help but think these same people who didn't want wifes to have any authority or rights are still in power.

    Of course I was trying to understand what would bring together the Mormons who don't support Catholics or Chirstians and will try and convert you from being a Christain. What would unite Evagelicals with Mormons who call Mormons a cult. What would unite Catholic with evangelicals who Catholics don't call Christians. Why would evangelicals who think Catholics are borderline cults and Mormons who they hate come together? What would bring together Focus on the Family who have had seminars on how to talk to Mormons or how to rescue a family member from mormon conversion?

    As I read the brief it became oh so clear, POWER. Their leaders all share one thing power. When I was still in ministry the first two questions I would always get when interviewing were how do you feel about women in ministry , second how do you feel about gays.

    Hint: If you want a job in ministry don't answer, I think women should be in ministry, Churches for years have always wanted them to teach sunday school children and be their teachers during their most important years, ( a clear sign that the churches don't believe men can aid in the long term development) why should we expect them to shape them and then think only men can preach to them. Second I would say I have no problem with gays, god loves them as should we I am more worried about divorse and adultry, lying and the poor. Then I would ask them what is your churches beliefs (they hate that). Ya your right I am no longer employed in ministry but I did last a few years. I still call myself a pastor even if no no one else does. Maybe when they legalize SSM I can do a few weddings that would be nice.

    Lots of rambling, but I have been wondering why these religious groups who don't play well together came together. Normally these group gossip behind each others back and call the others cults or just wrong. To me it is clearly a case of control and a fear to have to admit they were wrong. Just like little kids the first thing they do is lie when confronted, I am not sure why but I believe it is a defence mechinism. Maybe if we listen to the women in these mistries we would get a different view.

  • 170. Trial Proves Prop 8 is Di&hellip  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    […] your own house! 294 Pages To Equality « Prop 8 Trial Tracker The AFER legal team has filed their summary of the Prop 8 trial. All 294 pages of it. Officially […]

  • 171. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Is it the Plaintiffs' or Defendants' arguments that you're reading? (i.e., those opposed to Prop 8 or those in favor?)

  • 172. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Don't forget jimig….here in NJ the Orthodox Jewish community lead the fight against marriage equality here….and we all know how the Hatero Christians, Mormons, Evangelical, Catholics feel about them…..I'm just saying…..<3…Ronnie

  • 173. Protect Civil Marriage &r&hellip  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    […] Clean your own house! 294 Pages To Equality « Prop 8 Trial Tracker […]

  • 174. jimig  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Sorry I was reading the plantiff, I was first interested in their case (arguement) for the changes in marriage over time. Moving from rights or lack of to more defined roles and them equal roles.

    Then I moved onto Tams testomony and the plantiffs tracking of how the religious organizations were organized (ya kind of impressive).
    That just got me wondering, why would these groups work together? Then I just rambled (sorry).

    Then I moved onto the views on children and families. That is where I took a break.

    I did scan the defendants agruements, I was kind of worried till I read the plantiffs and I thought the plantiffs created a nice picture of the eveolution of marriage and the rights and expectations of marriage over time.

    The defendants claim as far as I can tell that marriage and tradition is between a man and women and one of the primary objectives is procreation. I need to go back and see what they say about the evolution of marriage they make it seem like it has alway been the same.

    The plantiffs claim that marriage is evolving / changing, I was impressed at the history and the way they shaped the case that marriage as we know it is relitively new.

  • 175. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Thanks for replying. Yes, the Plaintiffs' attorneys have done a great job. I really can't imagine a better team to take this on. Let's just hope it's enough to overcome the personal prejudices of some of the Justices.

  • 176. jimig  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    I know I am just saying these are all male oriented leadership groups. Deeply routed in traditional male oriented committees.

    What would bring them together, I think it is fear, fear of loosing power. Anyway sorry for the side track, maybe in the back of my mind I keep thinking divide and conquer.

    How do you divide a group bonded on fear? I think the answer is in the relationship, do their wifes get what they are saying (no otherwise the vote would be different). They are divided or the vote would be different. Part of me also thinks well they attacked me and my parents what if I attack them and how they treat their children. I know "wheres the love in that"

  • 177. Chris  |  March 1, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    "If they choose to discriminate against gays and lesbians in their churches, that is their right."

    I know I'm probably just stating the obvious here, but if your church discriminates against you, maybe it's time to find a different church. Why belong to and fund an organization which hates you?

  • 178. JQ  |  March 11, 2010 at 11:59 am

    The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return. -Moulin Rouge

  • 179. JQ  |  March 11, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    @Ronnie

    My mom is left handed and when she was growing up it was considered evil. They made her learn to write with her right hand.

    Now, she can do some things ambidextrously, but she is left handed. Some things are just innate.

  • 180. Brother xl2610&hellip  |  May 20, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Singer 7258…

    […]Singer 7258 offers the sophistication that is diverse from other sewing devices[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!