Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Impeach Judge Walker?


by Brian Leubitz

That’s exactly what the American “Family” Association wants to do. In an email to their supporter list, the AFA called for Congress to impeach Judge Walker for failing to conduct himself with “good Behaviour”:

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California’s Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state’s public policy on marriage. …

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only “during good Behaviour,” and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench. Judge Walker’s ruling is not “good Behaviour.” He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office. Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It’s time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Where to begin? There’s just so much crazy that is genuinely difficult to choose just one nugget. Let’s first start with the popular vote issue.  I’m hesitant to bring  this up again, because really? Really people?

Let’s talk about this.  Do we really want everything up for a popular vote? I guess it’s easy to criticize when you are the one putting up other people’s rights for a vote. But, flip the script, and what does the AFA say about it when somebody puts an initiative on the ballot limiting the number of kids you can have. I mean, limited resources and all. It worked for China, right? Right, AFA?

The larger point is that some rights are sacrosanct. They are not privileges that are earned or that should be put for a plebiscite.  My relationship should not be disfavored because a majority of California voters get squirmish, or are fearful, or are baited into fear through a $40 million scare campaign.

This of course ties directly into the question of impeachment.  “good Behaviour” wasn’t intended to be some sort of generic “the majority doesn’t like you” catch-all.  After all, there are decisions made all the time that the majority disagrees with. Yet, we don’t impeach those judges.  Heck, the entire point of the judiciary was for judges to be a check on the tyranny of the majority.  If we go around impeaching our judges because they apply the constitution simply in a way we don’t like, the entire Article III power of the judiciary will be wiped away.

Of course, this isn’t all that the AFA has said on the matter. In a right-wing online publication, they suggested that this was all in self-interest. Because, you know, Walker is gay (and doesn’t have the good grace to hide it back like those pleasant closeted gays of generations past). I’ll point them to my earlier post, “Did They Know Justice Alito is Male?” Back then, I pointed out the irony that nobody was complaining when Justice Alito was writing a ridiculously sexist opinion in Lilly Ledbetter’s case:

We all have some mix of racial, geographical, socioeconomic and other backgrounds. And they are all mixed up with who we are. We can’t take those labels off no matter how independent or fair you are.  Yet some will still see this as sort of bias.

So, did anybody comment about Justice Alito’s gender when he wrote the outrageous opinion in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire that said that under the Civil Rights Act women could not sue after 180 days from the discriminatory decision, even if they didn’t know about the decision for years? The decision that ultimately spurred the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act because it was so egregious.

Can an African-American judge not rule an issue of race? A female judge not rule on issues of gender? These ideas, of course, are patently absurd, as is the charge that Walker should have recused himself.

Yet, AFA and their allies will continue to push for the impeachment of Judge Walker and of any 9th Circuit Judges that concur with the district court’s decision, and probably for any Supreme Court Justice who dares to do the same. For the time being, their aren’t enough right-wing zealots to really push this through Congress. But elections are right around the corner, and their are quite a few of said zealots lining up to enter the halls of power.

Will Congress really take the time, even with a Republican majority in the House, to impeach Judge Walker? It’s doubtful at best. After all, “good Behaviour” was never intended to reflect a merely unpopular decision, rather to serious personal failings that would compromise his ability to be a judge. Things like taking bribes, that sort of thing. In our history, only 14 judges have been impeached, with only 6 of them being convicted.  This is not to be done lightly, or for mere disagreements on issues for which reasonable minds can disagree.

But the AFA and their friends are on a rampage. They want blood, and they are going to demand that right-wing Representatives in Congress pick away for it.  I suppose this just reiterates the importance of our involvement in not just the judicial process, but always being mindful that we can never forget about the political process.


  • 1. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm


  • 2. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Me first…If they want to impeach Judge Walker then I want EVERY anti-gay Judge impeached..fair is fair….. >I ….Ronnie

  • 3. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    awe Ann…herumph… ; )

  • 4. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Heh! I have no idea how I got first, it's never happened before and probably will never happen again!

    But — first! Neener!

  • 5. James A. Tuttle  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Wow…I just finished reading ALL of the comments on NOM Blog (there aren't very many) since the ruling was handed down. They don't understand the mob rule idea first off and I also think that they will always fight us as long as people think that being gay is a choice. I HATE reading comments like "well people choose this or that and thats their choice but don;t ruin the sanctity of my marriage with your choice". ITS NOT A CHOICE. And it really makes me feel bad that everyone says Judge Walker was "biased" no he wasn't. I read the ruling…its sound and fair given the evidence given. I hope he gets the fair recognition he deserves for doing the right and just thing.

  • 6. Daniel  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Bois put it bluntly almost a year ago: that proponents of prop 8 are getting stuck circulating and revolving around the same notion over and over again which is the exact thing that is up for debate. These proponents are stuck over and over again saying "marriage is between one man and one woman" and are making that the main focus of the argument when in fact, what marriage is or should be is the exact thing that we are coming together to debate or at least, return to in order to debate. It is not decided by opinion in the court of law. It is decided by what is presented outside of mere opinion. In fact, Walker even put all of one of the prop 8 proponents witness's testimony aside as mere opinion and had not factual weight. But now, the real question is now that the prop 8 proponents are so stuck in their circular, revolving, over and over again notions, that they cannot reconcile the fact that they have lost. I believe that some of the prop 8 proponents were so sure that they would win. Did they not see prop 8 being overturned as a possibility? Things in a court of law can go in one direction or another. But in this case, things could have gone in many directions. But in this case, it did not meet prop 8 proponents satisfaction. Pastor Jim Garlow even stated last year, on Dr. Phi, in justifying everything, claiming that the law was on his side, said "the fact of the matter is that you lost in a bonafide election". The law is on our side now, as it was supposed to be in 2008. The ruling makes it clear that the law was implemented and facilitated in a way that violates the constitution. I think that the American Family association needs to read the ruling in its entirety. The most important part, near the end, where the law really counts in this, THE PART ABOUT THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION near the end of the ruling is what is the most important part. Walker was very thorough and very responsible as he should be. He only needed to explain why prop 8 was unconstitutional, but he did so much better. He helped paved the way in keeping prop 8 overturned through appeals at the supreme court explaining not only is prop 8 unconstitutional, but explaining that the experts who support prop 8 derive non of their finding from real evidence, that their views are based on inaccurate views, stereo types, even false information on how it will affect (if at all) straight marriages and children of those marriages which was implemented in fearful tactics to scare voters who did end up voting for prop 8 after being provided with false information from which they based their voting on, how moral opinion of one group should not be imposed upon another, and clearly explained how in the 2 weeks of presented testimony, that the defense could not find 1 good, solid, tangible reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to be married. Some are crying foul. I see that cry of foul as desperation, trying in some way to turn this thing in the other direction. But because of such, absolutely fine, incredible work of Walker, I think that it is going to be really really difficult for prop 8 overturned ruling to be appealed. I find Judge Walk to be astounding in the completeness, detail, and thoroughness of his verdict.

  • 7. Cat  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    From the ruling (p.24):

    An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice,no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

    Yeah, he just dismissed the voters without even thinking about them. Right…

  • 8. Ben  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    I've been explaining all of the steps involved after the decision was handed down, Tyranny of the Majority and all — it's tricky … and I'm a little in shock that they would jump to suggesting impeaching a judge over not getting their way. I wonder if the words Representative Democracy really mean anything to them anymore, or exactly what they think this country is.

  • 9. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Does anyone feel vindicated from this ruling?

  • 10. Cat  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Yes, I do feel vindicated! Now there's an 138 page legal document that says that denying gays and lesbians equal protection under the law is based on at least ignorance, if not worse.

  • 11. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I do…& considering the way the anti-gays are going completely gonzo on the Facebook pages, I get the impression they know we were too. They are lashing out as if the world ended….its very amusing…..<3…Ronnie

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm


  • 13. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    My Constitutional Law professor was of the opinion that voter initiatives should be considered with a fair degree of suspicion and subjected to heightened scrutiny when reviewed by the courts. Needless to say, he was appalled that California could amend its constitution with a simple majority vote. :)

  • 14. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Ahem. 😉

  • 15. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    The crazy is reaching fever pitch.

  • 16. Dave in CA  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Well… if I were in the AFA or ProtectMarriage or NOM or one of those… I think the first order of business would be to file a malpractice complaint against their own lawyers!

    Next would be to find out, who okay'd hiring that law firm? Who signed off on the legal strategy and arguments? Who thought it would be a good idea to go into an evidentiary trial WITHOUT bringing evidence?

    Duh. These people really ARE that stupid: that is who they are. Like Judge Judy says, "(beauty, money, popularity, whatever) is temporary, but dumb is forever."

    Someone should tell them, this is what comes of valuing blind faith over education.

    But the way I really look at it is this — it all just goes to show, God really does work in mysterious ways.

  • 17. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Yes She does, doesn't She?

  • 18. Dave in CA  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    And I doubt even the Republican hard-core will make too much of an issue of this, going into this year's elections.

    a) most states have already dealt with it and (as of yet) are not affected by this ruling

    b) most people have moved on to matters more pressing in their personal lives: jobs, economy, the wars

    c) after so many outings of the likes of Haggard, Rekers, Ashburn, Larry Craig, etc, what politician in his right mind really, really, really wants to risk making a big public airing of any anti-gay craziness?

    d) the press now has the evidence which was kept hidden from them during the trial. Nobody is going to go on air and try to fight the findings of fact – they can't, and they know it. Anything they say anti-equality will just prove those findings of fact and the press will do just that.

  • 19. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    I agree completely. They (the pro 8 people like AFA, FRC, nombies, etc) have tried to make this issue out as a conservative vs. liberal issue, presumably with the upcoming election in mind.

    Buy it is not a liberal/conservative issue. I think it was David Boies who stated this in his interview in Rachael Maddow's show yesterday.

    Frankly I think alot of republicans have ssm high on their radars.

  • 20. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Actually that was supposed to be: 'Frankly I think alot of republicans do not have ssm high on their radars.'


    Bedtime I think.

  • 21. Skemono  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Has anyone ever asked these morons to describe, in their own words, what exactly they think the judiciary and the Constitution are there for?

    If overturning any law that was enacted democratically, by a majority of legislators or voters, or that has a majority of the population's support, is "judicial tyranny", then what purpose do judges serve? There's no need to decide what's constitutional–any law that was passed is, by definition, democratically enacted, and therefore overturning it would be "judicial tyranny." And that makes the Constitution a useless scrap with no weight, because any law that can get majority support apparently cannot be overturned, no matter how blatantly unconstitutional.

  • 22. Dave in CA  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    That is exactly the sort of question I would like to ask Brian B or Maggie G: "What do the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process mean to you?"

  • 23. cc  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Wow. I got the biggest laugh out of that one!

  • 24. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Hey everybody the psycho "ex-gay" Serena Nino started another Facebook page (this is like 100th anti-gay FB page she has started) called "Reinstate Proposition 8"…..she is a total waste of space & condones murder & violence towards LGBT people & calls anybody who is pro-Equality "Satan's Flies"….anywho…somebody else started a counter page called "Don't Reinstate Proposition 8"

    here's the link…to Don't Reinstate….<3…Ronnie:

  • 25. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Sorry, correction, Serena didn't start it, she's ones of the admins…same diff….anyway the page is still there….but we have this handy counter page….I am so sick of these people…they lost…why do the need tons of pages with the exact same people joining & posting the exact same thing over & over again….It's the definition of insanity…. : / ….Ronnie

  • 26. Dpeck  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Hi All,

    Tonight I went to the Commonwealth Club in SF and I got to hear David Boies speak and answer questions. It was a great experience. As an added bonus, I ran into our very own Alan from here at P8TT. Something to note – this event had been on the schedule for months and it was pure happy coincidence that it ended up happening one day after the ruling. The timing wasn't planned.

    As soon as the event began, before Boies even made it all the way to the podium, the entire room erupted into a spontaneous standing ovation. It was very moving, and there was more of that to follow a little later…

    For the first part of the evening, Boies spoke from the podium at length about the trial, about the three major points that they set out to prove:
    1. marriage is a fundamental right – he said this one was easy since the SCOTUS had already said as much several times already, and he gave the example of when it was ruled that felons serving life sentences must be allowed to marry (and this also poked another hole in the "marriage is for procreation" argument to boot).
    2. Denying marriage rights to SSMs harms these couples and their families.
    3. Ending this discrimination does no harm at all to opposite sex couples nor does it harm the institution of marriage itself, in fact it strengthens it.

    He went on to give his thoughts on many of the very same aspects of this issue that we all have been discussing here, including the topics in this very thread regarding the true role of the courts and the Constitution in protecting the equal rights of all citizens.

    Of course I had expected him to be a very good speaker and to be good at constructing arguments and making a point, but I was struck by how down to earth, direct, and accessible his comments were. He also has a good sense of humor. And I have to say, it just really felt so affirming and so GOOD to hear these statements direct from Boies, and to hear him quote from Walker's ruling.

    And then near the end of his speech, he began to make a light-hearted comment about how his team maybe didn't deserve so much credit because in the big picture, they had only stepped into the whole struggle for equal marriage rights at the end of the story – and then he had to pause for a few moments because he was getting quite emotional. When he resumed, he went on to say that this victory was for all of the people who had done the real fighting for equal rights and who had given so much, sometimes giving their very lives.

    It was clear that this man isn't just in this for the challenge, or the notoriety, or the money. He's in it for all the right reasons. He's in it for the principle at stake. I felt very fortunate to have been there to hear him speak.

    The audience had been invited to submit written questions and after Boies finished speaking at the podium the host for the event read several of the questions for Boies to answer. Some were really good, but I'm starting to draw a blank. Alan, if you're reading this, feel free to chime in, OK?

    The event was recorded for radio broadcast but I don't know the specifics. It's definitely worth a listen so anyone who can find it, please post the info here.

  • 27. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    THANK YOU for the report. I actually started to tear up again, reading this. It's people like David Boies who give lawyering a good name. One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that litigators — especially the really good ones — often believe passionately in the cause they're championing.

    I really hope I get to see him speak in the near future.


  • 28. Owen  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    It's so wonderful. I normally feel repulsed by the comments of the haters, but it's absolutely delicious reading their babble right now.


  • 29. draNgNon  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    WaPo had an opinion piece that said the same thing

    …The pro-Prop 8 defense single-handedly undermined just about every argument that has ever been used to justify denying gay men and lesbians entry into the institution of marriage….

    …if I were the conservatives I would troop back into court — and sue the pro-Prop 8 attorneys for malpractice.

  • 30. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Ugh… so typical of them.

    They're just spoiled two-year-olds, throwing a temper-tantrum because they didn't get that ice cream cone.

    Sigh. Will they ever grow up?


  • 31. Eden James  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Dpeck… That is one of the best comments that has ever been posted on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. And that's saying a lot, since there have been 46,111 of them since January.

    If you don't mind, I am going to promote your full report to the front page of P8TT for everyone to read. It's that damn good. Let me know if you want your actual name used or not.

    Hopefully, Alan can chime in with his thoughts as well and then we can get the audio as soon as it's posted.

    What an amazing community. When I read posts like this, it affirms the around-the-clock work Courage has been doing on this and so many other projects since the trial started.

    Cheers to you, Dpeck, and to everyone.

  • 32. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Crazy desperados!

  • 33. Norris Hall  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Judge Walker is a Republican
    He was nominated to the bench by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
    San Francisco's powerful civil rights organizations and Democratic leadership greeted Walker's nomination with howls of protest. They branded him hostile and "insensitive" to gay and lesbian rights because of his representation of the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit against the Gay Olympics over the use of the Olympics brand.

    Liberals, back them, gave Conservatives every chance to keep him from serving on the bench 20 years ago but Conservatives fought and won to have him seated.

    If conservatives are unhappy about his judgment TODAY they only have their own leaders to blame.

  • 34. Michael  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    When do we get to vote on the shrill anti-gay pressure group AFA's tax exempt status? In this time of economic crisis, we should not be subsidizing groups which promote the sham "religious belief" of homophobia. Let the people vote!

  • 35. John  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm


  • 36. Lightning Baltimore  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    Judging by Maggie's statements in the interview with Anderson Cooper, it would appear she considers Amendment XIV as applying solely to race, despite there being no mention of race in the amendment..

  • 37. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Mail call!!


  • 38. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Just a thought…

    If marriage is all about procreation, then prohibiting polygamy makes no sense!  Think about it: if a man has two wives, there is a better chance for him to have children, better chance to have more children than any other man married to only one woman has.  Children in such a family will have both a father and a mother, and they will also have siblings and half-siblings to grow up with — I see all the requirements anti-SSM people put forward fulfilled.

    After all, if marriage is only about procreation, there is no reason to have a special, exclusive relationship with only one person — I don't see how it will effect children!  The only way it effects a child is that it shows the model of a family this child may choose for oneself in the future — thus, adhering to monogamous family structure solely for the sake of promoting and promulgating that very structure (without any other particular reason whatsoever) makes no sense, and the “one man, one woman” paragon miserably fails!

    But why then the overwhelming majority aspires to having an exclusive relationship with one person only?  Why do we want to have a partner in life who will only be with us and no one else?  Because we're jealous!  Because jealousy is akin to an aspiration to have a special status in our partner's life, exclusive status that makes us feel special, unique.  And the desire to have that special status with one and one person only is how love expresses itself.

    Turns out, love doesn't really go hand-in-hand with procreation per se every step of the way (if we all only wanted to procreate, we would be willing to have as many sexual partners as possible to increase our chances to have as many children as we can — which is the opposite of monogamy).  And I'm not talking about child-rearing argument right now (the one that says the mother and the father have to stay together to raise their child) because the NOMbies entirely dismiss that argument by not recognizing same-sex families with adopted children or children biologically related to only one of the spouses as real families.  Basically, they argue that a child should be biologically related to both parents, which has nothing to do with child-rearing per se, rather, with genetics only.

    You can't have it both ways!
    If it's only about procreation, then the number of spouses make no difference!
    If, on the other hand, it's about two people having a special relationship, then it's about love which is universal and happens between two people of the same gender as well as it happens in an opposite-sex couple!

    The real truth about gay people is coming out!
    As well as the ugly truth about anti-gay folks!

    You got nuthin', NOMbies / NOMos / NOMosexuals!

    — ♂KF

  • 39. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    But what if it were a choice? If they keep up with the "it's a choice" then aren't they admitting that every single person in the world has the ability to be a homosexual? That "it" is already in our make-up? (Not Max Factor, I mean genetic).

    The "choice" issue is beside the point. Homosexuality is not illegal and if we choose to lead a life that is gay, then, as free Americans, we should still have the same rights as other free Americans.


  • 40. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    We heard that a lot here in Maine. The PEOPLE should decide! In fact, one gubernatorial candidate ran on such a platform. This knee-jerk reaction of THE VOTE does miss the point of a representative democracy.

    Can you imagine voting on every single law?


  • 41. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    That's for damn sure that this is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. Maine is a blue state that elected a democratic governor and even voted to approve medical marijuana during the same election that they rejected our marriage equality law.

    It was a huge shock and a real wake-up call for many people here, especially the young volunteers at the university, to learn that the fact that someone is a democrat does not mean that he or she will automatically support us.

    Conversely, some non-religious, non-right wing wacko conservatives do support us.

    Support and opposition does cross that red and blue border and we can't forget that.


  • 42. Chris B  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    I agree. Legislators study bills and debate them before voting on them. They look at the wording and consider the ramifications certain laws have. (at least, that's what I hope they do!)

    But the public can vote on any law with no knowledge of it. Their vote can be based on rumors or personal biases. (Same with legislators too, who also have to consider re-election.)

    It bothers me that Californians can change their constitution with a simple majority vote. That Prop 8 passed with only 52% is kind of scary. (Prop 8 supporters keep throwing around the 7 million voters number, what about the will of the 6.4 million who voted against it?) Federal amendments need ratification of three-fourths of the states to pass.

    I like the idea of having a 2/3 majority vote to change the constitution, or two subsequent vote by the state's general assembly.

    Fun fact: My state (NC) has in it's constitution: "Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language." This is unconstitutional and can't be enforced. However, in 1970 the voters failed to pass an amendment that would have officially repealed this section. Guess that shows that voters don't always know what they are doing.

  • 43. Chris B  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    "Our defense sucked! Let's fire the judge!"

  • 44. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    In a conversation here at the university, someone wrote: "Our constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Anything not explicitely mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. I'm not sure where SCOTUS' jurisdiction comes in on this one?"


  • 45. Chris B  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Right! There are 3 branches of government that balance each other's powers: Legislative (Congress), Executive (President) and Judiciary (the Court).

    It's the COURT"S JOB to review laws and make sure they follow the constitution. If all the court did was rubber-stamp a "Yes" on the law, there would be no need for the court.

    Compare this to the President's veto power. When the President vetoes a bill, no one cries "Presidential activism!"

    The sad part of their claim is that the proponents of Prop8 had such a pathetically weak case. The proponent's witness Tam said "I got my research from the internet" (which is fine if you are doing your 7th grade homework–but not for a federal trial); and Blankenhorn said 'America would be better if we allowed gay marriage." These are AWESOME arguments AGAINST gay marriage (?).

  • 46. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Haven't read yet, but I'm hoping Brian's punchline is 'death rattle'.

  • 47. Jess  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm


    Usually, reading the other side's BS makes me want to throw things, but this time I couldn't help but laugh hysterically. Are these people's heads so far up their asses that they really think they can impeach a judge for ruling against their case? Personally, I think they should continue carrying on like spoiled children, the more they try to undermine the basic tenets of the Constitution, the more people are going to see they're just self-serving whackjobs who are FAR too obsessed with what other people do in the bedroom.

    I don't think congress is gonna touch this one with a ten-foot pole. Even anti-gay representatives know how the judicial branch works, and they can't impeach a Judge who explains in small words why he came to his decision without a hint of personal bias. The idiots of AFA are only shooting themselves in the foot by screaming for unreasonable demands like this. But, I suppose they figure if the law allows them to vote away the rights of people they just don't like, why can't they remove a judge they just don't like either?

    I'm telling ya, they live in their own little dream world.

  • 48. PamC  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    Well, my wife and I "tied the knot" a little tighter last night, turning our civil union into a CT legal marriage, and I feel…less married than my hetero neighbors, still. Don't get me wrong, having the word marriage added to our self-description helps tremendously, especially when coming out to new people we meet–they get it, they know what our relationship means. And that's wonderful, because I know that people in this state and others which allow marriage to all people makes a difference to real hearts and minds. But we are getting on a plane to Florida tomorrow, and we know we darn well better pack our powers of attorney and health care proxies.

    What kills me is that posters like our friend gloria, from the last thread truly believe that all they have to do is "speak the truth gently" and if we don't accept their version of the truth, they can wash their hands of us ("shake the dust off their feet") and consign us to our due fate (which is hotter than Florida). Their "dream world" does not involve making real connections with real people or getting down to the brass tacks of meeting people on the level of their needs. They are CHINOS, as another poster wrote.

    Anyone who can "speak gently" and then turn their back on human suffering doesn't know any gospel/good news worth hearing. Or never heard the original message in the first place.

  • 49. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    As someone else pointed out, the fine work was done by the Plaintiffs' legal team, who assembled and organized all the evidence that D-I's were able to challenge (but didn't) and Walker was able to review.

    Walker didn't 'do' this, he just played the fine hand he was dealt.

  • 50. Franck  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Aw Kevyn you're trying to use logic against their arguments again… We all know that doesn't work on them.

    Interesting thoughts though. We should keep that one written somewhere and throw it at someone's face someday 😉

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1141 days, as of today.

  • 51. Franck  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    The right to marriage is Article 16 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. My question would be, where does that stand compared to the US Constitution?

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1141 days, as of today.

  • 52. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    They're being pretty cavalier in throwing around the idea of a 'right to vote'. Setting marriage aside for a minute, not every state even has a ballot initiative process.

    California has this free-for-all where, in a state with 37 million voters, all you need is a million signatures on a petition, and everyone has the opportunity to vote, and whatever the outcome, it is the law. Other states, like Iowa and New Hampshire have some kind of legislative failsafe, where an initiative has to be approved by the state congress before it is put on the ballot. In DC (although there will be further court challenges) the Board of Ethics (?) has repeatedly and consistently refused to put marriage equality on the ballot because it violates their not-quite-a-state civil rights code, and it's been upheld so far.

    They're going to ask the House to impeach a judge for overturning a vote in one state, when most of the 'voters' in the US would never have had a chance to cast a ballot in the first place?

  • 53. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I read somewhere, not on P8TT, a lawyer commenting that, if you want a judge to recuse himself, you make a motion at the beginning of the trial, not after the trial is done and the judgment you don't like is rendered. So, if Cooper et al did not ask Walker to recuse himself, either they were incompetent, or they had no basis for asking. Olson and Boies have said repeatedly that Cooper is a good lawyer. And when the SF Chronicle broke the news that Judge Walker is gay, even Pugno, who was quoted in the article, didn't blink. said 'not an issue'.

    And even if there was a conflict of interest, which there isn't, conflict of interest is not 'bad behaviour'.. (For Kathleen, Canadians and the Constitution use British spelling :)).

    I realize AFA have gone beyond bias to the 'exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny' school of bad behaviour, but still….

  • 54. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Yes I do. Yesterday when I woke up, practically my first thought was, today my children are more Equal to everyone else than they were yesterday. It's odd, I had that very same first thought this morning. Today my children are more Equal, it is day 2 since Equality started. It is burned in my mind what day it was, and exactly ow many days it has been since the pro Marriage Equality Verdict. August 4, 2010 is a date I'll never forget. Like September 11, 2001, or December 7, the day that will live in Infamy. I simply feel because of an official Federal verdict my children are more equal now.

  • 55. CharlesB  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    It actually struck me that the AFA press release actually supports Judge Walkers main points. In the religious right's point of view, gay people are NOT equal to straight people. Being Gay cannot be just another trait among many, (woman, black, Christian) it is a deficiency. So by drawing attention to the fact that Judge Walker might be Gay, they automatically assume that he could not also be unbiased. It becomes another proof point to the central argument of the ruling that the only rationale for Proposition 8 is animus.

  • 56. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    Especially when you consider that the case has been decided and will move through the appeal process as it stands. Impeaching Walker would not change that. It would be punishment, but challenge that this case poses, and all the attendant public attention, would still be there.

  • 57. Steve  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    If it were a choice, why should it matter? People are free to do whatever they want as long they don't harm others.

    Even legally speaking, it should be protected as a choice. Religion is a choice too and enjoys special protection.

  • 58. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    That's a Kathleen question, but marriage as a fundamental right is tied up, like privacy, in the whole idea of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

    Whatever the technical legal justification, marriage as a fundamental right has been upheld in 18 Supreme Court decisions over the years.

  • 59. rf  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    Perhaps they were counting on Walker being a self-hating closet case…like ashcroft? or brian brown. or tony perkins. or louis. or mrs. srivastav… since he had the reputation on the olympics case, he never actually confirmed or denied his gayness AND he's got a republican background?

  • 60. KarlG  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Hey!! I just went to the AFA homepage, and there is a link to email your representative to impeach Judge Walker.
    So I clicked on it, found my representative (very easy) and changed the body of the email! Urging my representative not to adhere to any demands of impeachment.

    Go for it! it's easy, and we can use their own tools against them.

    This is really absurd – and I'm sure it won't go anywhere. really? REALLY?

  • 61. Steve  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    "They look at the wording and consider the ramifications certain laws have. (at least, that’s what I hope they do!)"

    If only. In practice, they are just as biased and opinionated. There are a few who look at things objectively, but they are in the minority. Most are just driven by pure ideology.

    Take DADT or DOMA for example. In both cases, they clearly didn't consider all of the consequences and couldn't even be aware of same. With DADT they were presented with facts and willfully ignored them (both in the Pentagon Working Group and the legislature).

  • 62. Lori  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Definitely agree. I'm going to be a registered voter in CA by the fall election (most likely), and I'm considering a protest vote of NO on all initiative constitutional amendments.

  • 63. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Why? Because they are pathetic little people and hating GLBT's provides them an ego boost, "I'm better than you" Keep on fighting them Ronnie, don't give up, don't let their hatred go unchalanged..

  • 64. DazedWheels  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Subscribing, 'cause for some odd reason, occasionally the 'comments' section of P8TT's posts get blocked here. (Hi, all!)

  • 65. Lori  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    As much as I vehmently disagree with them, they are allowed to make as many FB pages and groups about this as they want – provided that they don't violate any of Facebook's rules, of course.

    It's actually kind of ironic when I look at this and think about the 4+ Repeal Prop 8 groups I joined in the aftermath of the election.

  • 66. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Dpeck, thanks for going and reporting back to all of us. I read every word, twice. I read it through once and it was so inspirational, I went back and read it again. If you think of anything else re-post please.

  • 67. Franck  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Nice idea, Karl. There are never better weapons than the enemy's own, and using their own e-mails to obtain the opposite of their goal definitely smells like sweet irony 😉

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1141 days, as of today.

  • 68. Sagian  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    I went to the AFA website and used their own message composition form to send a letter to my representative, saying what a fine job Judge Walker did and what a bunch of desperate loons the folks at the AFA are.

    I hope someone at the AFA reads it!

  • 69. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm


    Of all the venom spouted by the right wing religious wingnuts in response tp Judge Walker's decision, AFA is the only one I have seen calling for impeachment.

    You say in your post "…the AFA and their friends are on a rampage." Are you hearing things that suggest this idea has any kind of traction? Perhaps just wishful thinking, but this sounds about as politically realistic as putting a DOMA amendment in the US constitution. Not saying there won't be trash talk, and maybe even a bill that goes nowhere, but beyond that…. ?

  • 70. Alyson  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    These afa people are tax exempt also???!!! These groups exist solely to work against lgbt people in the political realm?

    Trial tracker folks – who's attention can we bring to this? None of these people should have tax exempt status and it seems it should be easier to yank than the Mormons or Catholics. Somehow this status legitamizes them. They aren't a church or a nonprofit. They are a PAC or a private 'think' tank (who dies no actual research exempt brainstorming and signing off on each others spewing without the annoyance of peer review.

  • 71. Straight Grandmother  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:03 am

    On that website Pam's Special Blend, our is it Pam's House Blend, had a webpage that showed official responses from all these diferent Hetro Only organizations and some big churches. It really did my heart good to read them, becasue it only toughens my resolve that there is still work to be done. Sure I am breathing easier today, I feel lighter and more relaxed, but reading those responses to the verdict, including this one from AFA only encourages me to stay vigilent.

    And of course this is just silly recalling Judge Walker, just silliness. However Maggie from NOM saying that the schools are going to start Soviet style indoctrination of your children towards the acceptence of GLBT, that is not silly. She and NOM know they will win the majority of the public over to their point of view if she can make you believe your children are at risk. IMHO we need a special campaign that focuses only on children, to dispell their propaganda. I wouold be glad to help.

  • 72. Lori  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:03 am

    Yeah. For one, it would probably wreck our budget even worse.

  • 73. Marlene  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:08 am

    The sheeple only know what Faux News and the pukes from the religious reicht tell them, Cat.

    Most, AFAIC *want* to be lead like unthinking animals, so someone can do their thinking for them.

    I hardly doubt Lush, and Dreck, and Shammity, ad nauseum can read brilliance, anyway!

  • 74. Marlene  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:14 am

    I dunno about that, Lori…

    Being an election official here in Ohio, some constitutional amendments here are good, some bad.

    We had a CA to allow casinos here, and just had to vote on another to move the proposed Columbus casino, since the locations were actually written into the amendment.

    Read the proposed Propositions, Lori, and vote for ones you deem worthy, and vote down the others.

    Then write to your state rep and senator and demand that they draw up a new law to change the way Propositions are handled in California.

  • 75. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:28 am

    John Stewart had a great segment last night, and of course he picked the part of Andy Coop where he was trying to ask Slaggie to answer a basic question about why she thought Walker was biased. Of course, Jon found the NOM post where she said it was because he was gay. I have to find the link after I finish writing on the newest post.

  • 76. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:34 am

    ok.. just fired off messages to my congressman and senator:
    On Wednesday, August 4th, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker made his decision in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, overthrowing California's state Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution's Amendment 14 (pending appeal, of course).

    On Thursday, August 5th, the American Family Association started a campaign to impeach him.

    I have heard from many that say that no Judge should have been able to overthrow a vote of the people, but that is just not so if it violates the US Constitution.

    I have heard from many that say Judge Walker should not have been allowed to be on this case because he himself happens to be gay and has a vested interest. That is illogical, as a straight judge has just as much vested interest. Looking at Walker's track record, you will note that his appointment to the federal court was held up for quite a while because of perceived anti-gay rulings, so this argument makes no sense.

    As such, I beg you to read for yourself the court transcripts and Judge Walker's decision. The American Foundation for Equal Rights has them available for all to see on their website (

    Looking at solely the evidence presented in the case, and not listening to the interpretations from any external source, I am confident you will find that Judge Walker came to the correct conclusion.

    As such, this attempt to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker is unfounded and not worthy of the Senate's time.

    “I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted samesex marriage than we were the day before.” — David Blankenhorn, witness for the defense.


  • 77. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:53 am

    First segment from the Daily Show last night:

    The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Californigaytion<a> <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com<a href=”” target=”_blank”>Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor<a href='; rel="nofollow">Tea Party

  • 78. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Congratz on getting married and enjoy your honeymoon!!


  • 79. Roger  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Yes, I can, Dave, and not just hypothetically. That is what the Athenians did. And it led to the rule by demagogues that lost them the Peloponnesian War.

    The "let the people vote" crowd really should read their Thucydides.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:49 am

    They do violate Facebook's rules. They promote violence. They delete comments & ban anybody who disagrees with them on any level, even Christians who do not agree on one little thing. You have to agree them, 100%, or they delete you. They spout out freedom of speech, but that;s the very thing they are denying even their own sheeple. They post personal information about people from pro-Equality pages. One of their pages got shut down by Facebook for that very reason & what did they do? Started the same page doing exactly the same thing. & Facebook policy #7 says no discrimination.

    : I …Ronnie

  • 81. Dave P.  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Hi Eden,

    Of course, feel free to use it in any way you want, and thank you. : )

  • 82. Dave P.  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Hi SGM,

    It is noteworthy that throughout the evening when Boies referred to people affected by the ruling, he frequently referred to them as 'same sex couples and their children'. I was thinking of you over there in France and your grandchildren over here in the States every time he said it. :)

  • 83. Roger  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:59 am

    that is true, Sagesse; but even the finest hand can be played badly. Walker played his brilliantly.

  • 84. Dave P.  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Hi Eden,

    I forgot to answer – yes, feel free to use my real name. I'm Dave Peck.

  • 85. Andrew  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:11 am

    I just found the video you referenced. I love watching John Stewart. He has an excellent grasp on satire, sarcasm, and wit, which just furthers the point of anti-equality being an illogical position.

  • 86. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:24 am

    @ Roger.

    I know. That was directed at the 'Impeach Walker' idiots. Who aren't reading or listening, but it feels good to say it anyway.

  • 87. MJFargo  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:25 am

    To be honest, just following this trial was vindication. Hearing my life experience discussed in a rational and open way in a court of law humbled me. I've lived my 60 or so years never doubting myself, but having to deal with a lot of nonsense that I just avoided as best I could. Throughout the trial, though, I was never "sure" what Judge Walker was actually hearing. Often I found reassurance when he tried to probe–particularly the defense–to please state their case in some rational form…and they never could. Waiting for his ruling wasn't excruciating, but reading it was certainly thrilling. And ahead? Three years waiting for the Supreme Court to decide is nothing after the last 60. I'm proud of this ruling, and thank particularly the Olson/Boies team and those who assembled them.

  • 88. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:33 am

    I just got to reading this. I posted my review plus a link to the Commonwealth Club audio on the newest post. It is really worth listening to! (Adam maybe you can put it in a new blog posting?)

  • 89. Lori  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Don't worry, I was planning on that. In fact, I'd drawn up something with my views on what I'd read of this year's so far. Now if I can only find it…

  • 90. Summerwine  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Awesome. I just sent a "DON'T Impeach Message." Better make this viral on Twitter and Facebook.

  • 91. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Chris B, where in North Carolina are you? We are in Hope Mills, just outside of Ft. Bragg.

  • 92. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:12 am


  • 93. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:32 am

    This question of the Tenth Amendment (which is what Dave's comment is referencing) is a really complex issue, one I'm probably not qualified to thoroughly address, even if I had time to do it justice.

    But I'll offer a few observations.
    – Whenever I hear people make this Tenth Amendment argument, I'm immediately on alert for the crazy stuff that's likely to follow. This is a favorite rallying cry of the likes of Glenn Beck, et al. I'm not suggesting everyone who embraces this perspective is irrational and uneducated, but odds are…
    – The Constitution doesn't mention Purple Shirts either, but do we assume the states are allowed to pass laws which would make it illegal to wear a Purple Shirt? Of course not; such a law would have no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest.
    – It's true that issues of marriage have historically been left to the states, but once again, people seem to forget that the state isn't free to do just ANYTHING. Any state action must still be within the boundaries set by the US Constitution. If they think marriage is exclusively the domain of the state, ask them if they think it would be okay for a state to limit marriage to only left handed people.
    – The Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum where the "plain reading" of the text is sufficient to understand constitutional law. It has been interpreted and fleshed through more than two centuries of case law in federal courts. And as Sagesse stated, and as was made clear in the Perry case, case law has established marriage as a fundamental right. Therefore, if states want to enact a law regulating marriage, it will have to withstand strict scrutiny. (we have yet to see if Walker's interpretation– that extending marriage rights to ss couples falls within that protection — stands up on appeal)
    – The marriage cases tend to be tied up in rights of privacy. This also isn't mentioned in the constitution, but has evolved over time from case law. This remains a rather controversial issue. There are a couple of good sources on the web which give arguments on both sides if you want to read more about it.

    As to Frank's question:
    I don't know to what extent the US's signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights plays into any obligation to abide by it in US courts of law. It's not an area of law that I know much of anything about.

    But, again, a few observations:
    – I can bet that the right wing fundies, even if they think we (the US) should be bound by the Declaration's provisions, would say that the kind of "marriage" and "family" that is protected in it is THEIR definition of those word.
    – There has been a recent trend in the political right to become distrustful and openly hostile toward judges making any reference in their opinions to international law. Did you catch all the questioning along this line when Kagan was in front of the Senate Judiciary Committes? I'm guessing this UN Declaration would be on their list of suspicious documents.
    – The US has recently proven itself to be rather lax in its interpretation of other of the Declaration's statements — what constitutes torture, for example.

  • 94. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Also, Sagesse, the D-I's attorneys had a nothing hand to play and that is what came out in the evidence. this is the real reason they did not want this trial broadcast.

  • 95. Straight Grandmother  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:40 am

    @DaveP, thank you, thank you, thank you. I will now officially stop complaing that it is rare to hear the prinicpals in this case talk about children of GLBT's. You were there he said it almost every time he reffered to the Plaintiffs, he mentioned "the families they raise" so I feel represented, I feel included.

    I am part of the "family" of the union of my daughter and her wife and my son and his husband. I am actually exhaling deeply. I feel a sense of peace, yeah I am part of these families, along with my husband, my parents (in thier 80's) and my brother and sisters who are aunts and uncle. Of course the central and MOST important people are the innocent minor children. I am officially done, done, done with this complaint. It was maybe just a small part of what you heard last night but to me it was a very big deal. I had written to both Boies and Olson previously and noted the lack of inclusion in their statements. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  • 96. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Brian, Eden, Adam, CCI-are you listening? This is yet another of our P8TT family requesting something that focuses on the children and the harm that anti-LGBT legislation and thought does to them. I hope someone picks up on this and posts just such a thread.

  • 97. Dave P.  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Hi SGM,

    You just reminded me of something else : ) Quite a while ago, when I was first getting active in the fight against Prop 8 I was feeling a bit depressed and lonely due to an extended bout of being single and I was talking about all this to my mom. I told her I wasn't even sure why I personally felt so passionate about all this since I didn't even have a family of my own. She said "Hey, I'm your MOM and I'm your family and when my son is not allowed to marry it hurts ME".

    I love ya, mom! : )

  • 98. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    BZ and I just finished watching this clip. HILARIOUS TO THE MAX!

  • 99. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Beautifully written Andrew :-)

  • 100. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Thank you, Franck and Kathleen. I have now downloaded the PDF of the Hebrew translation of the UDHR, and am printing out the English version. And unless I am mistaken, in the picture at the top of the page for the UDHR, that is Eleanor Roosevelt holding it open to read it.

  • 101. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Well congratulations PamC :)

    Nationwide equality will come in time, I have no doubt of that.

  • 102. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 5:18 am

    'why do the need tons of pages with the exact same people joining & posting the exact same thing over & over again'

    That's probably for the search engine benefit – to make your 'movement' appear larger than it is.


  • 103. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Cross posting from the other page (plus pictures):

    Last night, I got to go see David Boies talk at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (The audio of it is here… ).

    When I first arrived, I was looking for an open seat. I found one and asked the person sitting next to it if it was open (many chairs had coats spread across to save them). To my surprise, the person I asked about the seat turned out to be Dpeck! We got to chat for a bit before the even started.

    As soon as Mr. Boies walked in, the crowd gave a standing ovation. At the very end of his speech, Mr. Boies started to tear up, and that just got mine going, too. There was a Q&A session, but we had to submit our questions ahead of time. The moderator grouped the questions of similar type and asked them of Mr. Boies in lumps. This was fantastic because you didn’t get the same question over again, you don’t feel bad if your specific question doesn’t get asked, and the timing ans pace of the session was impeccable.

    [Note: New content]
    Three particular parts I thought were very important. 1: Mr. Boies told us to ask people exactly which facts they disagree with in the trial. Many people use rhetoric or probably didn't even read it, so challenge them to point out exactly which parts they disagreed with and could refute.
    2: There is a chance that this trial could be fast-tracked. Mr. Boies explains it a lot better than I, but there is potential for the 9th Circuit to
    skip en banc (spelling?) and hear the trial starting this year!
    3: Olsen and Boies have a deal: Ted Olsen is responsible for getting the judges that voted for him in the Bush v. Gore case to support our case, and Boies is responsible for the justices that voted for him.

    As Mr. Boies was walking out, I had to rudely interrupt a conversation I was in so I could shake his hand and thank him. I made my way downstairs, said goodbye to Dpeck, but decided to go to the bathroom before I started my trek home (having to pee while on BART sucks). Mr. Boies was just starting a press conference, but most everyone who was at his talk earlier had left. I noticed that no one was checking anything at the room, so I just walked in and started taking pictures with my phone and recorded a couple minutes.

    Before he could leave, I stopped him to get him to sign my copy of the decision. I also had one more request, something I had been thinking about doing for months: I wanted to give him a great big hug. Of course he obliged. I walked out of there with a huge grin on my face and tears streaming. This was one of the best days of my life!

    I’ll get a picture of my signed copy to post soon. You should definitely listen to the audio (it was shown on Channel 2 as well, last night, so there may be video somewhere).

    Some pictures are here!

    Also, keep an eye out on Commonwealth Club's Youtube page for the video:

  • 104. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Even if they are biased and opinionated in their review, they can change the law if it doesn't work. Laws get passed all the time that conflict with other laws and cannot be applied as intended. So they get amended. But a voter initiative cannot be amended except under very limited circumstances.

    The more I learn about how easily people are swayed by commercials that lie to them, the more I think that ALL laws voted on by "the people" are suspect.

  • 105. ElsieH  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:25 am

    PamC: Congratulations! <3

  • 106. Tigger  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:42 am


  • 107. PamC  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Thanks, everyone! :)

  • 108. Bob  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:06 am

    you could start by doing a full story on baby Roy, this is the next move , we could take the lead in our concern for the children, by honoring baby Roy, investigating his story, and advocating for Obama to follow another of his promises to ratify "the Convention of Childrens Rights" which has been done by every one of the united nations except Somalia and U.S. lets move on it.

  • 109. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Here I am late to the party again, but Pam, I hope that this anniversary is even better than last year's was, and that each day from here on out is filled with even more happiness, joy and blessings for you both. You deserve it. And if you guys are driving instead of flying home, contact me on FB and we can make arrangements to meet somewhere close to I 95 here. We may even go to the only place to get authentic Mexican in this area–Mi Casita's.

  • 110. Mandy  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:23 am

    I woke up feeling the same thing too SG although my little ones are 3.5 and 1.5 but the thought of my children not having the opportunity to marry whomever they loved was breaking my heart and making me angry at the same time.

    I know it is more real for you I just wanted to add that it was my kids who are motivating me to make sure that they are equal not matter who they love.

  • 111. Mandy  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:27 am

    "They look at the wording and consider the ramifications certain laws have. (at least, that’s what I hope they do!)"

    That is very relevant when it comes to prop 8. Many people accidentally voted for prop 8 because they thought it was voting for ssm when in reality it was to take it away. The intentional misleading words of the prop lead to the prop passing.

  • 112. fiona64  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:34 am

    L8R, I know you've seen me say this before on the SacBee: Prop 8 is the proof that it's time to get rid of CA's stupid ballot initiative scheme.


  • 113. fiona64  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:37 am

    FWIW, that's one of the reasons that the Church of LDS decided to use CA as its ground for making gay marriage illegal: they knew they could get enough signatures by going to heavily populated conservative areas, such as Orange County. They knew *exactly* what they were doing; the saw an opportunity and grabbed it.


  • 114. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I hate the California proposition system. I really do. And now it is being subverted by big business to try to fool people into voting into law things that will benefit big business.

  • 115. David Boies tears up at s&hellip  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    […] and on their YouTube page. The San Jose Mercury News was there to cover it, but I was so moved by David and Alan’s personal accounts of what happened, I decided to highlight their coverage instead. The Club has not posted the […]

  • 116. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I know this is a discussion from yesterday, but I'm going to take a stab at this one, too. Yes, marriage is left to the states to decide, but they cannot do so in a way that includes discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause or due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That is where SCOTUS's jurisdiction comes from.

  • 117. wayne  |  August 8, 2010 at 8:06 am

    The mere fact that the AFA would propose such an insulting and preposterous impeachment suggestion should demonstrate to any sane person how dangerous this group is!

  • 118. Would you like to spend a&hellip  |  August 9, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    […] and on their YouTube page. The San Jose Mercury News was there to cover it, but I was so moved by David and Alan’s personal accounts of what happened, I decided to highlight their coverage instead. The Club has not posted the […]

  • 119. Heather  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Do you maybe want to learn how to spell the word "there" correctly? Thank,

  • 120. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    heather, the speeling of "there, they're, their" depends upon the usage. "There" refers to a place, "their" is the possessive for of "them" and "they're" is the contraction for "they are." So when Brian is writing about sending an email to their supporters, he is spelling it correctly. Hope this clarifies things for you.

  • 121. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Richard, there are a couple of errors in Brian's post. I'm sure he understands the correct usage. My guess, is that, like so many of us (certainly myself) he relies on spellcheckers and doesn't always catch the mistakes the spellchecker misses.

  • 122. Dave in ME  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Hi, Kathleen!

    After a week, I am finally getting to your response. Thank you for the analysis! It will definitely help me in my arguments.

    Your statement "the state isn’t free to do just ANYTHING" reminds me of that time when some states decided they would secede from the United States. Whatever the real reason was for secession, they were shown that they could not do that, either.

    Thanks again for all the explanations and analysis of ALL this stuff for us, Kathleen!

    Dave in Maine

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