Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Schwarzenegger and Brown ask court to let marriages resume; AFER files motion opposing a stay

Statements Trial analysis

by Brian Devine

State Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just filed papers asking Judge Walker to immediately enforce his decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional and to allow equal marriages to resume in California right away.

The anti-equality backers of Prop 8 filed a motion with the Court asking it to hold off on enforcing (or “to stay”) its decision pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals.  Judge Walker ordered that the Plaintiffs file their opposition to this motion today, and agreed to stay enforcement of his decision at least until he rules on this pending motion.

That both the Democratic Attorney General and the Republican Governor think that marriages should resume now shows that there is broad agreement that equality cannot wait for years of appeals.  Sure, there are crazy outliers that think that we should continue to discriminate against same sex couples, but those people are far outside the mainstream of legal thought.

Here’s a full copy of Jerry Brown’s filing.

The jist of Jerry Brown’s argument is:

Defendant-Intervenors’ argument that the Attorney General’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ initial request for a preliminary injunction supports their request for a stay pending appeal ignores the fact that there has now been a trial on the merits that conclusively demonstrated that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. In opposing the request for a preliminary injunction, the Attorney General argued that “the parties, the Court, and, indeed, the general public would benefit” from having the constitutionality of Proposition 8 “decided on the merits following full briefing and argument by the parties.” That has now occurred. And while there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this Court’s conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any harm to the state defendants.

And here is a full copy of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s filing.

Schwarzenegger’s agrument is similar to Brown’s.  In essence, he argues that denying the stay and allowing marriages to resume will further the public interest by promoting equality for all:

[I]mplementing the Court’s order now, without further delay, serves the public interest. . . . California has long been committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and respecting the familial rights of same-sex couples. . . . The Court’s decision here is consistent with California’s long history of leading the way in recognizing the rights of gay and lesbian families to order their relationships and manage their day-to-day lives. For that reason, California’s public interest is served by giving the Court’s judgment effect now.

The Plaintiffs (represented by Boies and Olson) have not yet filed their opposition to the Motion to Stay, but it will be filed wihin the next few hours.

UPDATE: Dean Logan, the LA County Registrar/Recorder/Clerk, says that he is preparing to start issuing licenses as soon as the stay is lifted:

“My office is definitely following all developments concerning the ruling and subsequent order to stay judgment. We plan to take immediate action to implement the court’s orders if the stay is lifted and judgment is entered. Operations wise the department is ready to issue same sex marriage licenses, our marriage license forms would not need to be altered and I have directed management staff to prepare for possible implementation.

We have received a number inquiries from members of the public regarding marriage licenses and also to volunteer as deputy commissioners of civil marriages. At this point we can only wait to see what action the court makes.”

West Hollywood officials are also preparing to start officiating marriages, as are other cities across the state.  You can be sure that as soon as it is legally possible, San Francisco will be back in the act of marrying same-sex couples.  Stay tuned for more updates if/when they come in on the stay.

UPDATE: The plaintiffs have now filed a motion opposing a stay.

From a statement released by the AFER:

Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, issued the following statement today after the plaintiffs — and the Governor and Attorney General — opposed a stay of this week’s ruling in the Prop. 8 trial:

“The unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 has been proven beyond a doubt. Extending Prop. 8’s denial of fundamental constitutional rights represents a grave injustice. The time for the court’s ruling to go into effect is now. We welcome Governor Schwarzenegger’s and Attorney General Brown’s opposition to a stay after their thoughtful analysis of the evidence, the court’s ruling and the law.”

Their motion can be found here.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Stay of Prop 8 Ruling

UPDATE BY EDEN: Karen Ocamb notices a wry wrinkle in the AFER motion:

Here is part of their argument, in which they cleverly quote from Protect Marriage witness David Blankenhorn:

“Whether Plaintiffs marry immediately or at a time of their choosing could not be less relevant; this Court’s ruling establishes that Proposition 8 is an unconstitutional barrier to the exercise of their constitutional right to marry, and that finding alone establishes the irreparable harm Plaintiffs would suffer if Proponents’ extraordinary request for relief were granted.

As citizens of a nation profoundly committed to the principle of equal rights, the public has a substantial interest in allowing Plaintiffs to engage in the fundamental right to marry to which they are entitled. “[A]ll citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution” and have “concerns [that] are implicated when a constitutional right has been violated.” Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). This Court’s judgment therefore advances the shared interest of all citizens in enforcing the Constitution’s guarantees and reinforces this “Nation’s basic commitment . . . to foster the dignity and well-being of all persons within its borders.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264- 65 (1970). Suspending Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights at this point would, in the words of Proponents’ own witness, prevent this Nation from fulfilling the founding principle of “equal human dignity” and stop us from becoming “more American.” Doc #708 at 50 (quoting David Blankenhorn testimony and exhibits) (emphasis added).

UPDATE BY EDEN: Kathleen in the comments has been an amazing resource for Trial Trackers looking for credible and timely information on the legal process. Often, she’s ahead of us in posting news and providing analysis in the comments. Check out the thread on this post as yet another example.

Speaking of extremely helpful experts in our movement, check out the“What the Temporary Stay in the Prop 8 Case Means” FAQ that Shannon Minter, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, just sent us. For everyone who wants to understand the legal lay of the land right now, it’s a good short primer. Here are the money grafs:

Judge Walker can decide whether to stay the decision for longer at any time. If he grants the motion to stay, same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until after the appeal is finished. The Judge can also delay the decision for a short time until the Ninth Circuit appeals court decides whether they will order a stay.

If Judge Walker denies the stay and permits his decision to take immediate effect, the Yes on 8 proponents can ask the Ninth Circuit appeals court to order an emergency stay.

272 Comments

  • 1. Ronnie  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:21 am

    "I'll Be Back"……<3…Ronnie

  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Hasta la vista, baby.

  • 3. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Just one blow after another for poor Saggie and Co.

    I LOVE it!!!!!!

  • 4. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Subscribing to this one. I read the brief and there really isn't much to it. It does say that "each of the four factors this Court must consider in determining whether a stay is warranted weigh against a stay."

  • 5. Miles  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Any word on when we should hear from Walker? It's 4:30 on a Friday… can't imagine he's still possibly going to release a ruling before the weekend? Is Monday the best hope now?

  • 6. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:25 am

    That's what I get for thinking outside the box…

    Clickies.

  • 7. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Wow. Just… WOW. I never would have expected this out of Arnold. Not even in his lame-duck position.

    If he can do it, why not the rest of the GOP???

    This is almost as exciting as the ruling itself, IMNSHO.

  • 8. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I'm still mad at Arnold for this, though — might have avoided all this nonsense: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-13/bay-area/17

  • 9. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Thanks to Kathleen, I already knew that =p

  • 10. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I'd love to see the brief of Plaintiffs in opposition…

  • 11. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Your clothes. Give them to me.

  • 12. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Ah, the Governor's brief sets forth all the applicable law and standard of review. I love it.

  • 13. Valerie  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:34 am

    As they are the actual defendants of the case, Cooper and them being Defendant-intervenors, does this mean Perry and Schwarzenegger speak for the defendant side (and thus overruling any stay request otherwise made by the defendant-intervenors)?

  • 14. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Good God, man!

  • 15. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The reason the Judge allowed defendant-intervenors to come in and take the place of the Governor and AG was because the Governor and AG refused to defend the law that they believed was unconstitutional.

  • 16. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:37 am

    In other words, the court knows that the Gov and AG support overturning Prop 8 so they can't be seen as speaking for the defense.

  • 17. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

    It hasn't been put on the docket sheet yet. I'll be posting it here as soon as it is.

  • 18. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:40 am

    That's very much part of my surprise. I'm guessing about 100 years from now, this will be part of some GOP pamphlet about how they were behind marriage equality all along.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Watch for a comment prefaced by UPDATE. That's how I always post my comments when there's been a new filing.

  • 20. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:42 am

    THIS is kind of wonderful, isn't it?

    :)

  • 21. Scott  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Well, at least he got on board now. Better late then never. He probably read Judge Walker's opinion and was thrown into shock by the sheer use of logic and reasoning (something he isn't used to in Sacramento politics).

  • 22. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:43 am

    No idea. He's going to wait until the deadline has passed for submissions. We're still waiting for Plaintiffs' filing. Walker has issued rulings on the weekend in the past, so it won't necessarily take until Monday to hear. However, he MAY decide he needs to set a hearing for the matter, so we'll just have to wait to see what happens. :)

  • 23. LeighAnne  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Motion for Stay should be denied on Monday or Tuesday.

  • 24. Matt  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I believe the governor's initial veto of the same sex marriage bill (according to articles at the time) was solely because he wanted the power of judicial backing, and the will of the people, on it's side. If it went solely through the state senate, he knew it wouldn't last.

    Unfortunately, the Prop 8 people "arrived" before it could be put to vote, so the proposition to legalize same sex marriage never materialized.

    I don't believe the governor did anything wrong, I think he just was aware that anything this important needed much stronger backing than a simple state law.

  • 25. PDN  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Judge Walker's ruling on a stay isn't expected until Tuesday.

  • 26. Breaking the Silence  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Oh dear lord! The irreparable damage that will surely be done to the fabric of society if a stay isn't enforced by this activist judge who is forcing his will upon every last resident of the state of California!! Minus the sarcasm: Honoring the request to lift the stay would be awesome!!

  • 27. LeighAnne  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Because it was a citizen initiative, the government doesn't even have a pro forma obligation to defend it.

  • 28. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

    You give him more credit than I do, Matt.

  • 29. MJFargo  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Be still my heart! Did the Gov'nor just score some big points with me?

  • 30. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:55 am

    I thougt this was a temporary stay that expired today. Was it extended?

  • 31. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:56 am

    He's actually being consistent with the position he has taken for some time – let the court decide if it's constitutional. Now it has; he wants to stand by the ruling.

  • 32. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Ooooh delicious.

  • 33. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Grumble grumble grumble — still trying to hold onto righteous anger against Arnold. I have never liked him. But OK, I may have to give him some credit.

  • 34. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Actually, it was because Proposition 22 couldn't be legally amended in the way that the legislature was attempting.

  • 35. fiona64  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:01 am

    I don't know about Judge Walker's court, but a lot of courthouses are "dark" on Fridays to do administrative work.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 36. HunterR.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Let me start by saying that I'm elated by Walker's decision. In fact I'm still waiting for marriage equality so my partner in Mexico now, can join me here (if we survive this long distance affair…that is another matter).
    But as Bella dePaulo writes on THP "Judge Walker ruled that you shouldn't have to be a certain kind of couple in order to have access to the many benefits that legal marriage bestows. But if "California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally," then why should you have to be part of any kind of couple to qualify? Why should California (or any other state or the federal government) continue to treat single people as second-class citizens?" I remember thinking in those lines years ago. I think I still like that position. Equality for all – married or not.

  • 37. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I'm a Volunteer Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriage for L.A. County and I LOVE that my boss Dean Logan refused to defend Prop8 and that he issued that statement saying the L.A.County Clerk's office is ready to roll. I'm going to be at the Norwalk office Monday and I hope I hope I hope the news comes down that we can start doing ceremonies right away!!!

  • 38. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:02 am

    It wasn't due to expire today; it's in place until Walker rules on the Proponents' Motion for stay pending appeal.

  • 39. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:03 am

    "I'm looking for a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."

  • 40. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I wonder… the Republicans, as Rachael Maddow noted last night, have been basically falling over themselves to NOT comment on this issue at all. The defense attorneys in the case put up such a poor case thereby setting themselves up as such complete idiots that no one would ever want to hire them for anything important again. The ruling on the case was SO very clear and concise and in our favor that only the folks with BLINDERS on don't get it. Now Schwarzenegger and Brown, who really have no NEED to get involved again, having made their positions clear at the start, but seem to be doing so because they personally think it right, are asking the court to move ahead and make it so. And it seems like more Americans are with us than not, and that even the opposition that thinks they HAVE the backing are putting out statements which sound more and more like the ravings of the desperate, obsolete fringe, which even the mainstream press has noted.

    Is it possible that… we worry too much? Can it be that we have been knocked down into the dark SO many times that we are afraid of glimmers of light, lest they just be another trap? Is there any way that somehow, we have actually REACHED that tipping point for which we have been waiting and hoping for so long?

    I know we are scared of getting our hopes up too high, because we are expecting long, hard years of continued battles to come… but… what if this becomes the top of the hill, and because we are all helping each other up the steep bits and keeping each other's spirits up, we got here before we even knew it?

    Honestly, I am feeling somewhat giddy.

    Makes me almost want to go out and find someone to propose to right away!!!

  • 41. Christoph  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I'm sending flowers to the first couple to wed! (And to Arnie and Jerry)!
    God speed!!

  • 42. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:06 am

    UPDATE: P-Is City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Motion to Stay to Pending Appeal http://www.scribd.com/doc/35495376/Doc-718

  • 43. HunterR.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:06 am

    furthermore, she points out:

    "Judge Walker said that the Prop 8 proponents were making arguments based on stereotypes and that "no evidence supports these stereotypes." He insisted that "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation."

    Fine. I agree. Prejudice and private moral views should not be the grounds for legislation. But I think that the 136-page ruling also includes a number of private moral views in which married people are seen as superior to single people. I think it includes stereotypes of single people and those stereotypes are not true, either.

    The Judge maintained that when same-sex couples have access only to domestic partnerships and not to marriage, they are seen and treated as inferior to married couples. That's not fair. But married people are also viewed as superior to single people. (Lots of data document that prejudice.) The ruling lets married people continue to be treated better than single people. That's not fair, either."

    And that I feel is true……

  • 44. AlexD  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Ann S.

    I see his point in not vetoing the Proposition 22 bill. California is supposed to be able to pass voter amendments – if the legislature just keeps overruling them then that kind of makes that power pointless. Obviously if the voters pass something unconstitutional, that's another matter.

    Also, I don't see how it would have avoided this whole mess. Voters would have just passed a constitutional amendment instead (like Prop 8).

  • 45. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:07 am

    The briefs are all due today and must be filed with the court today, but I doubt that Judge Walker will decide today. I'm sure he'll make his decision quickly, but the stay will remain in place until he does make that decision.

  • 46. Miles  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:08 am

    AFER posted their response:
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filing

  • 47. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:08 am

    I happen to agree with you Matt — the brief filed by Schwarzeneggar made clear that California stands behind relieving same-sex couples of any discrimination by the state, and I believe he has probably always taken that decision. But as you say, he needed the weight of federal law behind him — remember, the California constitution has been amended in a fashion consistent with state law and is now "tainted". Only the federal court could have weighed in to cleanse it.

  • 48. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:09 am

    I still feel it was cowardly of him to veto the legislative attempts at marriage equality. But this position of 'the courts have now decided' is consistent with his more recent statements.

  • 49. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:10 am

    OK, that I can agree with.

  • 50. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:10 am

    How wonderful to see you here Elizabeth! If it DOES happen, please come tell us all the fabulous stories!!

  • 51. Jeff  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:11 am

    San Diego is also prepairing to issue marriage licences
    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Is-San

    "Here in San Diego County, the Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk's office is preparing for what could be an onslaught of gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses.

    "If it is removed, we expect a lot of people," Butler said. He said when the decision came down on Wednesday, the phone was ringing off the hook, couples were already trying to set appointments.

    Source: Is San Diego Ready for Gay Marriages? | NBC San Diego "

  • 52. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Goin' to the chapel, and we're — gonna get married . . .

  • 53. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Granted — single people and married people are not similarly treated in many ways. Unfortunately, that may never change… I have found that, as a single person, my employer places many more burdens on me than on my married colleagues. My married colleagues, because many of them have children, receive deference to care for their families. In my case, I am expected to work long hours of overtime because I have "nothing waiting for me at home".

  • 54. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Ooo… Tasty :)

    "Proponents’ Appeal Is Meritless"

    "There Is A Significant Question As To Whether Proponents Even Have Standing To Invoke The Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Appeals"

    This just from the table of contents :)

    The good just gets better…

  • 55. Miles  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:16 am

    from Plaintiff's response: "Indeed, at the outset of the proceedings, when asked to articulate the
    harms that would befall society if Plaintiffs were granted the relief they seek, counsel for Proponents
    mustered only an “I don’t know.”

    That quote NEVER gets old :)

  • 56. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Are you getting anything? That appears to just be a placeholder link until they get the document. It isn't available through the e-file system yet, either.

  • 57. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Can't you just feel the EQUALITY and FREEDOM in the air???

  • 58. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am

    And their reasoning sounds FABULOUS to me… I never knew reading court documents could be so much fun!

  • 59. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Thanks Kathleen! I am very proud to have been the witness for the first official same-sex ceremony we did in Norwalk back in 2008 (I wanted to perform the ceremony, but Dean Logan bogarted it for himself, lol.) I was also the Deputy Commissioner on duty the day before Prop8 passed, and we were doubling up ceremonies to try to accommodate everyone who wanted to get married. Prop8 was such a crusher for us all, I hope that THIS Monday, I'll have to double up ceremonies again but for a much better reason. :)

    Long live love!!!!

  • 60. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Not loading…

  • 61. Breaking the Silence  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Anonygrl, thank you for putting that into words. I've been musing along similar lines, wondering if, perhaps the folks appointed for life, you know…to "insulate them from public opinion" might just do what has been so clearly shown to be the right thing, should the issue make it to SCOTUS. …In the process, sparing the political world from having to make themselves look like asses any further over the matter.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Oooh, if it does, I think I'll have to come watch just for the thrill of it. I'm in San Gabriel.

  • 63. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:24 am

    I love it:

    Proponents next contend that “absent an immediate stay of any ruling invalidating
    Proposition 8, same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in the counties of Alameda and Los
    Angeles (and possibly throughout California)” resulting in a purported “cloud of uncertainty” and
    “inflict[ing] harm on the affected couples.” Doc #705 at 10. Even if Proponents’ sudden interest in
    safeguarding the interests of “affected couples” is genuine, the supposed harm Proponents invoke is
    that of the “affected couples,” not the Proponents. If Proponents have no standing to invoke harms
    purportedly suffered by the State, then they have even less of a right to invoke harms suffered by
    persons allied with the Plaintiffs. And, of course, gay men and lesbians are more than capable of
    determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom to marry, wish to do so
    immediately or wait until all appeals have run their course.

  • 64. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Click a couple times… it doesn't come up right away. Must be server overload. I'll post to scribd.

  • 65. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35495901/2010-08-06-Pla

  • 66. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:27 am

    MAJOR CORRECTION: This is what I get for doing things so quickly!

    Doc 718 (link above) is the JOINT opposition to the motion by PLAINTIFFS and P-Is!!

    So, I think that's the one everyone's waiting for from AFER. (in my defense, I was going by the description on the e-file notice, but I should have looked at the actual document). Sorry about that!

  • 67. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Hmm… this is the same as the one posted earlier by Kathleen. It looks like a joint motion of Plaintiffs and SF.

  • 68. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:30 am

    LOL — I wasn't looking at the captions, just went straight in to the meat.

  • 69. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Love it! This goes right to the heart of one of the comments here – about what a patronizing bunch of bs the Proponents' position was.

  • 70. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Yes, but the government only needs to satisfy rational basis to discriminate on the basis of marital status. I'd be happy to entertain a LEGAL argument for why someone thinks discrimination by the government against single people should be under the same standard of review as discrimination against gay people.

  • 71. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Yes, it was my mistake, saying that this document was only filed by the P-Is. It's a joint opposition. Btw, if you watch carefully, you'll often get document here in the comments before they become available elsewhere–just all part of the public service. :)

  • 72. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:33 am

    "No problemo."

  • 73. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:34 am

    How about "It's not a tumor", from Kindergarten Cop?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 74. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:35 am

    I know I'm jumping the gun here, but it just seemed appropriate:

    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfrLFirGWc&hl=en_US&fs=1]

  • 75. Breaking the Silence  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Ironic they're citing a "cloud of uncertainty." Clouds are borne in the sky, and admitting one may exist runs contrary to their Chicken Little position.

  • 76. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Chris,

    Mark my words, the American fundamentalists (hopefully in a very politically weakened form) of the future will crow about how they were big supporters of marriage equality, just like they were always against slavery.

  • 77. HunterR.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:39 am

    fierce!

    "intervenors cannot by themselves prolong the litigation through an appeal unless the intervenors independently establish their Article III standing."

  • 78. MJFargo  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Good golly grief! I just read the plaintiff's response! I'm so glad those folks are on our sideA

  • 79. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Aha, so you're the one destroying the moral fabric of American society!

    ;-D ;-D ;-D

  • 80. MJFargo  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:42 am

    You have served us extremely well.

  • 81. Brad  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:44 am

    We have the right to marry.

    A federal judge ruled that way. The state Supreme Court ruled that way. The governor says so. The attorney general says so. The state legislature has voted for same-sex marriage. Polls show a majority of Californians support same-sex marriage. The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego are ready to issue marriage licenses.

    Still, bigotry and prejudice are alive and well in America. I'm nervous as hell that our constitutional rights once again could be snapped away.

  • 82. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Oh what a great read!

    Two of my favorite sections (though there are many others):

    'Even if Proponents’ sudden interest in
    safeguarding the interests of “affected couples” is genuine, the supposed harm Proponents invoke is
    that of the “affected couples,” not the Proponents.

    If Proponents have no standing to invoke harms
    purportedly suffered by the State, then they have even less of a right to invoke harms suffered by
    persons allied with the Plaintiffs. And, of course, gay men and lesbians are more than capable of
    determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom to marry, wish to do so
    immediately or wait until all appeals have run their course.
    '

    And:

    'Suspending Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights at this point would, in the words of Proponents’ own witness, prevent this Nation from fulfilling the founding principle of “equal human dignity” and stop us from becoming “more American.”'

    More American indeed. A quote that (might) live in infamy :)

    Beautiful!

    I recommend reading it all, hell it's only 14 pages :)

  • 83. Dave in ME  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:48 am

    SO much emailed comments! I'm thousands behind, but I still want more!!!

    Dave

  • 84. HunterR.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

    These guys really did a good job. I just send my donation to AFER. They went to the courtroom to fight the good fight. The other side was expecting a walk in the park saying they didn't need any evidence. WRONG!

    " Having failed to marshal any reliable evidence in support of their various factual assertions, Proponents simply repeat in their stay motion the various unsubstantiated, unfounded, and illogical arguments this Court first rejected at summary judgment, and then rejected again after a full blown trial.Id. at 111-38. A stay pending appeal requires a “strong showing” of likelihood of success, and Proponents have not come close to meeting that standard in any respect.Nken, 129 S. Ct. at 1761 (rejecting the “more than negligible” likelihood of success test) (emphasis added). "

  • 85. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:54 am

    It's a huge deal, not just for the strength of Walker's decision (as I've said before, it reminds me of John E. Jones III's dismantling of "intelligent design" in Dover), but also for the possibility – stronger by the day, it seems – that SSM will be allowed to resume. There were 18,000 couples before, imagine how many more there will be by the time this gets to Appellate Court, let alone the Supreme Court. It's very hard to roll back civil rights – it does happen, see Prop 8 and Maine's Question 1, but it usually becomes one step back, two steps forward.

    And Brian Brown thinks there's going to be a federal marriage amendment? Not gonna happen. What does worry me is what will happen at the Supreme Court. You think the reaction to Prop 8 being overturned is strong, a nationwide lifting of marriage bans would be seismic – I think limiting the ruling to California is preferable to losing the whole ball game. Who knows, we'll see….

  • 86. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:58 am

    That and "Good God, man!"

  • 87. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:58 am

    'I wonder… the Republicans, as Rachael Maddow noted last night, have been basically falling over themselves to NOT comment on this issue at all.'

    Yes… It may be that even the republicans are sick of this issue and see no further point in opposing the inevitable.

    One can hope :)

  • 88. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:00 am

    That would be me, Straight Ally *flutter eyelashes flutter*

  • 89. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:01 am

    (sniff). Smells F'n great!

    ;)

  • 90. Varika  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

    ….okay, I'll bite: how do you marry yourself?

  • 91. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:07 am

    OT. Red Dawn is playing on locat TV here in Toronto. Watching while reading.

  • 92. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Very appropriate, thanks!

  • 93. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Jon, I think we're seeing a split between old-school small-government Republicans (the real heirs of Barry Goldwater) and the "social conservative" Religious Right Republicans (who seem to be circling their wagons around Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc.). We've got:

    • Ted Olson, co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs
    • Republican appointee Judge Vaughn Walker
    • Republican appointee Judge Joseph Tauro (declared DOMA unconstitutional)
    • The Log Cabin Republicans filing a lawsuit against DADT
    • San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, witness for the plaintiffs
    • Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

    The so-called social conservatives need to wake up and smell the equality.

  • 94. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:09 am

    WOLVERINES!!!!

  • 95. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:10 am

    So, I took a look at Diamond v. Charles from the table of authorities:

    Justice Blackmun: "Because a private party whose own conduct is neither implicated nor threatened by a criminal statute has no judicially cognizable interest in the statute's defense, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction."

    FTW!

  • 96. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I don't see a federal marriage amendment happening, I think very few people really do. The bar is so much higher to amend the US constitution.

    And yes, SCOTUS does concern me – it is a crap-shoot. And it seems clear that the prop 8 proponents are counting on SCOTUS. I have no 'feel' for what that outcome would be if/when it gets there.

  • 97. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Would it be inappropriate for a straight married woman like me to just go hang out at West Hollywood City Hall one day to watch a few couples get married?

    I've never been to a same-sex wedding & I really really REALLY want to go to one. I wouldn't dream of crashing a church wedding (or a reception) or any other wedding on private propery — but I'd love to see the joy of people who can finally get what they've been waiting for for so very long if people are actually getting married at City Hall.

  • 98. Miles  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:19 am

    **looks around**

    now what?

  • 99. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:19 am

    I was at SF City Hall for my brother's wedding in 2008, the first day we had marriage equality in CA.

    SO MUCH JOY! Everyone was grinning, even the security guards and clerks.

    You know what would be fabulous? That day, some women from the UU church were handing out cupcakes, and they had used Teddy Grahams for cake "toppers".

    No one will think you're inappropriate if you bring cupcakes or flowers or anything else joyful.

  • 100. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:21 am

    I think, in this case, it would probably be welcomed. And I bet you would not be the only one there just to cheer. As long as you make it clear you are there because you are overjoyed for them, not just to gawk. :)

  • 101. Bolt  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:23 am

    I see your point; however, everyone that you've mentioned is old, and nearing the end of their career.

    The LCR's are like a black fly in your chardonnay. Isn't it ironic?

  • 102. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I think showing up at the places where the civil services are happening would be more than welcome. Bring cookies, cupcakes, rose petals, big rainbow flags.

    Hell, I'm so swept up in the moment, I'm on the verge of going out and finding a woman willing to marry me! (though, I'm pretty sure my boyfriend might object). ;-)

  • 103. Eden James  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:28 am

    As edifying as this discussion thread has been, this is by far my favorite comment. ;-)

  • 104. Bolt  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Go for it, hunny, get wild!

  • 105. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Bring Kleenex. All of us were crying at the Norwalk office. :)

    There was a lovely documentary called "Flowers from the Heartland" about the SF marriage equality time-people from all over the country called the local florists and ordered flowers to be handed out at random to the couples waiting in line to be married. Just a simple flower or a note of support to someone you don't know can mean so much. And everyone should witness the joy this liberty will bring.

    BTW, Teddy Grahams for wedding cupcake toppers RULES

  • 106. ChrisQ  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:30 am

    There is really no end to the cruelty of NOM. From their blog:

    Respected pro-SSM legal scholar Eugene Volokh says:

    The most interesting politico-legal question raised by Judge Walker’s same-sex marriage decision, I think, is whether it will provoke a new — and perhaps narrower — round of Federal Marriage Amendment activity. . . .

    But now, with the federal district court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage, and another from last month striking down the federal government’s decision not to recognize same-sex marriages (using reasoning suggesting that states had a duty to recognize same-sex marriages), the matter is not hypothetical at all. The question: Will Republicans introduce a narrower amendment, perhaps saying something like,

    “This Constitution shall not be interpreted in a way that would require any government to recognize a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar status, other than a marriage between one man and one woman."

    If that is not animus and moral disapproval I don't know what is.

  • 107. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I can bring joyful stuff. I'd be happy to bring joyful stuff!

    Hmmm. I bet I could make cupcakes & top them with rainbow frosting. =)

  • 108. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Somewhere on the road to Atlanta, Maggie and Brian and Louis's heads are exploding.

  • 109. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Luv it!!!!

  • 110. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Eugene Volokh — from my alma mater!

  • 111. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Are the proponents of Prop 8 really this incompetent? They supposedly structured their case with an eye to getting Justice Kennedy on their side (based on comments from Mr. Cooper). They basically torched their case with Walker with the intent to get 5 justices at the Supreme Court later.

    Now, it appears that they don't even have legal standing to appeal the case?

    I can't believe that they were this stupid. I have a suspicion that they knew they would loose this case, but that it would infuriate the rest of the country and get them more donations…

  • 112. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:35 am

    SA3008: I hope so. It has always bothered me the influence the social conservatives have had on society in general, let alone the republican party.

    I guess they had to attach themselves to some 'mainline' party in order to impose their belief systems on others. hey don't have the numbers to do it themselves.

    That seems to be what they need to do – bend everyone else to their views. I've never understood such people.

    But it really does seem that most republicans these days are trying to distance themselves from divisive issues like abortion and gay rights.

    I hope that trend continues – but I expect the social conservatives to get more vocal and shrill as society leaves them behind (hence increasing talk of 'revolution', and other nut-ball nonsense).

    Time will tell, but history has shown that people like them always lose eventually. Though it sucks that many will be harmed (or die, like little Roy Jones) along the way though.

  • 113. MJFargo  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Just musing: If the defendant-intervenors have not standing to appeal this decision, who knew that and when? Throughout all of this we've heard that Prop 8 folks might lose here, but will certainly rally on appeal and/or at the Supreme Court. Why would the defendant-intervenors put on such a shoddy case if they knew they couldn't appeal? (The State made it clear they wanted no part of this early on.) And, if later, a less friendly govenor/attorney general is elected, can they reinstitute the appeal in some other form?

  • 114. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Do they realize that they need 2/3 approval of both the House and the Senate, then approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states?

    Can they even DO that much math? We know they can't even count people at a rally when fewer than 100 show up…

    I have a theory as to how their numbers keep being consistently higher than ones reported by the people who haven't been drinking the Kool-Aid. Each person at a NOM rally has Jesus at his/her side (allegedly). That's an awful lot of Jesuses…

  • 115. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:40 am

    I follow Volokh's blog. A number of the commenters there also noted that his proposed amendment is nothing more than hateful gay bashing.

    He says he voted against Proposition 8 and supports gay marriage, but then he says the courts are the wrong place to win it.

    I also noticed that NOM linked to one of the posts at Volokh only a few minutes after it was posted. It would have been impossible for NOM to have read the article, written the synopsis, and posted the NOM blog entry in that amount of time. They somehow had the inside scoop, or paid for the article to be written.

  • 116. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:42 am

    I'm sure there is a 60 or 90 day appeal window at most. Another Governor or AG will not be able to appeal the law at a later date.

  • 117. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Interesting observation. I don't know much about him – never had a class with him. In fact, he came on as faculty shortly before I graduated. I've read his blog a few times and have never been able to get a very good read on where he's at on a number of issues.

  • 118. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:44 am

    #Eden: 'As edifying as this discussion thread has been, this is by far my favorite comment. ;-)

    Haha. It was a great 'feel good' movie. Two other lines I really liked:

    'Matt! RPG!'

    Had a boyfriend named Matt once.

    and of course:

    "Why?!? Because we live here!" (que ak47 fire into 'traitor-buddy')

    WOLVERINES!!!!

    :)

  • 119. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Only 30 days. But the clock hasn't started ticking yet. Walker needs to formally bring the case to a close first.

  • 120. Steve  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:44 am

    It shouldn't be that surprising. He was pretty consistently for marriage equality.

    He opposed Prop8, but wanted the issue to be settled in court as not to create some legislative tug-of-war between voter initiatives and the legislature or government. And when it went to court, he chose not to defend it – requiring that anti-gay groups carry the defense.

  • 121. Bill  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:47 am

    1. I suppose the only harm that could happen to those who marry (if the stay is lifted), and the decision reversed is that their status reverts to civil partnership with the same rights and responsibilities.

    2. I wonder if the 9th Circuit/Supreme Court will have a delay as to whether Pugno et al. actually have standing (see one of the briefs).

    3. I also wonder if the 9 Circuit will find some way to uphold overturning Prop 8, but narrow the reasons so that their decision only applies to Calif.

    Well the roller coaster ride has begun.

  • 122. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:48 am

    On Rachel Maddow's show last night, she was talking about how a few of the Republican Senate candidates this time around are so extreme on the abortion issue that they don't even want exceptions for rape or incest.

    The NV candidate, Sharron Angle, apparently made some comment implying that 13-year olds who get pregnant via rape can make lemonade out of a lemon situation by carrying their babies to term. Rand Paul suggested that rapists and child molesters should make sure to educate themselves about contraception. o.o?

    Someone else on Rachel's show last night (or maybe it was Rachel) was pointing out that the extreme wacko Republican candidates may be the best thing that's happened to the Democrats this year. Let's hope so…

  • 123. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:49 am

    I dunno,.. I still love Blankenhorn's "more American" quote… That was said before the trial, in one of his books, and will resonate through history.

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 124. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:51 am

    For those of you leaning to a romantic mood at this point, I have my wedding story…

    In 2004, we had a very small ceremony at our home in Ma… 8 special guests / our closest friends… tears intermingled with laughter… declarations of the best wedding ever for ALL of us…

    After a hot, beautiful, sunny day in New England, and after all the guests had left, a heavy rainfall… followed by a huge Double Rainbow in our backyard… the likes of which we had never seen before!!!

    An amazing day for two simple guys who shared the past 25 years together. All those years we never thought we'd see the day that we would be married… we just wanted and hoped that we could grow old together.

    I sincerely hope that the events this week lead to more Rainbow Weddings and Rainbow Lives like ours.

  • 125. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Well, even Attorney General (and former governor) Brown said that the only reason he even let it onto the ballot was the signatures, and that he thought it would fail. And had the campaign to get it passed had been an honest campaign, instead of a fear-and hate-mongering smear attack on all of us, it would have failed.

  • 126. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:56 am

    California has Domestic Partnerships, not Civil Partnerships (thanks for illustrating why it's a stupid system – people don't understand it). Regardless, I don't think they would revert marriages to that.

    I suspect what they would actually do would be to treat them the same as out of state same sex marriages. They have all the rights as "married" couples, but they aren't given the designation of "married". The law is unclear as to what they are called…

  • 127. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Kathleen, I know you're busy, BUT…

    If I understood correctly, Mr Boise implied that the appeal to the 9th Circuit may have no standing.

    If so, what are the implications in relation to connecting this trial to SCOTUS?

    Thanx for all you do… Ray

  • 128. Anony-boy in the mid  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:58 am

    LOVE this comment, Anonygrl!

    Wow — I gotta read it now!!

  • 129. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:59 am

    That's "future" Governor Brown please…

  • 130. Anony-boy in the mid  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:59 am

    typo: I meant, I gotta re-read it!

  • 131. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Nice. I hope I meet someone and get that opportunity someday.

    Lucky :)

  • 132. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    What a beautiful story. (here come the tears again)

  • 133. Matt  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Now THAT is how you write a legal motion!

    First section's great, reminds the court that they've already considered the proponents' arguments to be meritless in the trial so why should they give them merit now.

    Second section, honestly not sure how the "proponents don't have standing to appeal" argument will hold up but it's a good tactic to try.

  • 134. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    So, in the Plaintiff's document, they mention that the DI's may not have the legal standing to appeal… If so, and the stay is lifted… Is that the end?
    Not of our struggle, of course, but of this particular case? Do the rest of us have to wait for a similar battle in Oregon or Nebraska or Florida before we can get DOMA and such removed?
    Or can Perry still advance to SCOTUS for a resounding across-the-nation denouncement of anti-gay laws?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 135. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I preface this again with the fact that I'm really weak on matters of procedure. So all I can do here is repeat what I'm hearing from other sources. There's talk that the Proponents may not have standing to appeal. If that's the case, I THINK (but don't know for sure) that it would apply equally to the Supreme Court as to the 9th Circuit, though I suppose the question could be brought up anew at the next stage of appeal.

    If it turns out that Proponents don't have standing, then it would seem the only way for the case to go forward would be if a party with standing is willing to step up to defend the case.

  • 136. Bill  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    I assume that a case would be filed arguing that the proponents do have standing to sue, which would delay the hearing on the decision until the standing issue was decided. But that tactic would depend upon whether a stay was in effect or not.

  • 137. Bill  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Thanks for the clarification as I could not remember the right term.

    As to the recognition of out of state marriages, I think Calif passed a law which clarifies the issue. My guess is that out of state marriages are treated as domestic partnerships at present.

  • 138. Joel  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    It seems that the Boies and Olsen are also questioning the legal authority for the D-Is to even appeal the case. Certainly the Governor and the AG don't want to.

    Don't we WANT an appeal though? (I know we don't want the stay pending appeal.)

  • 139. Joel  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Okay, I posted that question before I had "refreshed." Sorry about that. At least I'm not killing any trees!

    The second part of my question still begs an answer though: Don't we WANT an appeal?

  • 140. Dave in ME  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    B.S. Brown is moving on to plan B: getting the "real" civil rights people out into the battle. (Sorry if this has been mentioned yet-I still have over 1300 comments I haven't read yet!). This is from his email today at 5:31 EDT:

    We've just received word from Dr. Alveda King that she will be able to join us at tomorrow's Summer for Marriage Rally in Atlanta, Georgia. Please help spread the word to anyone you know in Georgia or a nearby state!

    We are extremely honored that Dr. King would arrange her schedule to be able to join us tomorrow afternoon, headlining our event outside the Georgia State Capitol from 2:00 – 3:00pm.

    Two days ago, in an outrageous 136-page ruling, federal judge Vaughn Walker stripped 7 million Californians of their right to vote for marriage — declaring that same-sex couples have a new civil right to redefine marriage for everyone. And that the Christian faith, like the beliefs of other traditional faiths, "harm[s] gays and lesbians."

    Dr. Alveda King knows a thing or two about civil rights. Her own life has been dedicated to standing up for the rights of the unborn, speaking for those who have no voice of their own. Her father was the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A.D. King. Her uncle was the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Two great men who stood for respect, human dignity, and the rights of all to participate equally in the political process.

    The time has come that we must now stand for marriage. I know how busy you are, with family, church, work and other commitments. Maybe you have never stood at a public rally or protest before. But if we don't stand for marriage now, it could soon be too late.

    Will you join NOM as we fight to protect the civil rights of all Americans to vote for marriage — the union of a husband and wife? NOM was founded to give you a voice, making a difference for marriage. Today, the most urgent need is to fully fund the legal defense of Proposition 8. Your gift of $25, $50 or even $100 or more will help guarantee that Prop 8 is not lost for lack of adequate resources.

    Then forward this message to five of your friends. Explain how urgently we need them to join us, signing the petition to Congress at TwoMillionforMarriage.com. Ask them to stand with you in support of a great human good — the natural family rooted in the love of a married husband and wife.

  • 141. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Thanx for your input… so much speculation and when you least expect it, a curve ball comes at you. This seems to be something like that.

    If it doesn't trigger a trip to SCOTUS Land, it may mean back to states rights to regulate marriage… more and more states would have to strive for Marriage EQ and if achieved, then approach the Feds for a relief from NOMA?… and eventually an intervention by SCOTUS?

    I don't mean to rain on our parade, but these awful things pop up in my head… I'm usually very optimistic!

  • 142. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    nm… Ray in MA already asked… great minds and all that :)

    @Kathleen, as always, thank you for sharing what you can about the legal mumbo jumbo; even if you're not confident in your answers, know that we're even less confident in our questions. Your clear and honest responses are worth their weight in gold :)

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 143. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Andy, we seem to be thinking in parallel… see my other thread with Kathleen.

  • 144. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Just like women who live together evolve to the same menstrual cycle…us guys are synching up our legal instincts!!! You, me, and Andrew!

  • 145. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Brep…..that was nauseating!!! The depths of their delusions are astounding!

  • 146. Ronnie  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Does he never learn that they are NOT allowed to force their religious beliefs on us & that it is a violation of our 1st Amendment rights? They're religious beliefs & definitions are not the law.

    >I …Ronnie

  • 147. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    I hadn't really paid attention to the motion to intervene by Imperial County until this issue starting coming into my consciousness. I just went and read Walker's Order denying their motion and it appears that it was exactly their concern over this issue of standing on appeal that led the county to ask to intervene in the first place. I need to go back and read Imperial County's original motion.

  • 148. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Kathleen, what if there is a legal sidetrip to determine whether D-I's have status or not… could that stretch things out?

    By the way, the answer is to elect Jerry Brown and his AG 'running mate'.

  • 149. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    I have something to say about the effect of SSM on OSM that may get lost in the comments here — I hope not. Because I hope it may give hope to others and shine a new light on this issue.

    I got married in 2000 to a man I thought I loved and knew quite well. But five years later, when the SSM issue was publicized so widely, I discovered that I did not know my husband as well as I thought. I was very much in favor of SSM, and he was very much against it for religious reasons. I asked him one day, "If SSM were legalized, do you think that would have any impact on our marriage?" I was shocked (and dismayed) for him to reply that (possibly using different words) SSM would cheapen our marriage somehow. Yes, it would have an effect on how he thought about our marriage.

    I never forgot that, and ultimately it was the first nail in our marriage's coffin. No marriage should be impacted in any significant way by external — and completely unrelated — issues and legislation. That is my view. I will marry no man whose valuation of our marriage is dependent upon the laws of the state regarding marriage rights. My husband should love me, and no outside influences should be able to impact that love and commitment.

    I would challenge any of those couples against SSM to answer the following question… Is the strength of your marriage impacted by legislation that does little more than change the world surrounding you, but does not impact your marriage in particular? If so, I would ask — how do you explain to God that your marriage is that weak, that it would be damaged by outside influences?

  • 150. Eden James  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Kathleen, thank you yet again for being so helpful to our community in the comments.

    Refresh this post to read what I just wrote about you and Shannon Minter from NCLR.

    Eden w/ the Courage Campaign Institute

  • 151. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Sorry about that. I forgot that he is running again. And yes, I will from henceforth and always (at least until he becomes Governor-Elect) refer to him as Former and Future Governor Brown. And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't his previous time in office accompanied by a huge amount of growth in California's economy and income, leading to a very large increase in the overall well-being of everyone in California? Sounds like California needs that again.

  • 152. Joel  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Were we supposed to take care of that before lunch, or after? I haven't gotten my updated copy of THE AGENDA yet…

  • 153. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Heh… so, they're still mentioning their TwoMillionForMarriage attempt — I thought we had discussed that they had given that up…

    I used their site to send my own petition to Congress:

    I am writing today because I wanted to be sure that you heard from the tens of millions of Americans who firmly believe that the Constitution of the United States guarantees EQUAL protection and access to fundamental rights like marriage — regardless of sexual orientation.

    Too often, we remain silent, watching events in Washington from a distance. Today, I am writing to urge you to take action to protect the rights of the American people to to protect the concept of EQUALITY that our nation was founded on.

    In an unprecedented ruling, federal judge Vaughn Walker has ruled California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, confirming that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" (Maybury v. Madison, circa 1803, as proclaimed boldly on the walls of the US Supreme Court) by stripping 7 million Californians of their right to vote for bigotry.

    But the 7 million California voters are not alone. Forty-four states have now adopted laws re-affirming the definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. Out of thirty states where a constitutional amendment on marriage has gone to the people, the amendment has passed. Clearly, Equality and Justice still is lacking in most of the country.

    Marriage is a fundamental right, as defined by the US Supreme Court. EQUALITY, not bigotry, must be the battle cry in recognizing the diversity of humanity across all cultural, religious, and ethnic lines.

    Contrary to what the National Organization for Marriage and similar groups contend, we live in a REPUBLIC, not an OCHLOCRACY (mob rule). The "Tyranny of the majority", as described by Alexis de Tocqueville in his work Democracy in America, has no place in America. The 'right of the people to vote' does not extend to 'the right to remove fundamental rights from others'.

    I urge you to take whatever action necessary to protect EQUALITY and the rights of ALL Americans by voting for an EQUAL MARRIAGE ACT — even a constitutional amendment to protect Equality from "the tyranny of the masses".

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 154. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    We will post pictures of ours and hopefully video (if I can figure out how to do that once it's on my laptop. Yes, Thanks to my latest HP upgrade, I can do videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Just have to figure out how to put them on DVD's afterward for friends and family that don't have computers, but do have DVD players for their TV's.

  • 155. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Beware, Alveda is in bed with Glenn Beck… Google her name and most all of the results are recently dated with her and Bleck…obviously she's seeking a pot of gold for herself using her family name…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6-wyYj97U&fe

  • 156. Mike  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Tracy, thank you so much for that insight. I've been coming to the P8T site since the start of the trial and have read many interesting and often insightful comments.

    Your's is one I wish I could share with the millions of Americans out there who are being bombarded by the right-wing fundamentalist propaganda and have no defense against it.

    My marriage (from TX so it's a ways off) should have no impact on anyone else's and contrariwise that should be true as well. I hope you don't mind that I've shared your comment on my Facebook so that my friends and family, some supportive and others on the fence, will see that we are not the only one's who believe as you do.

    Thanks!

  • 157. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    I think this falls again, into questions of procedure. If I understand what I read earlier, the 9th Circuit would likely take up the question of standing as a threshold question before agreeing to take the case. I don't know whether this could cause a delay and if so, how much.

    Has anyone heard or read anything on this issue discussed anywhere in blogs, Boies interviews, etc.?

  • 158. Lawrence  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    "Think" they have Jesus and are counting him. But Jesus wouldn't be on that side.

  • 159. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    I have TWO good questions we should ask Alveda King:

    1) Coretta Scott King, the widow of your uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is quoted as saying "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." — How to you reconcile her message with your own message on LGBT rights?

    2) You are listed as 'a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution' (sourced from Wikipedia). Are you familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville's term "the tyranny of the majority" about how the people's right to vote should not be allowed to "place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots"? How does that relate to the National Organization for Marriage's statement that people should be allowed to vote whether the LGBT minority is allowed to marry or not?

    LUCY, YOU'VE GOT SOME 'SPLAININ' TO DO!!!

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 160. Lawrence  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    OMG – reading this section on whether they have standing to appeal is so awesome. Static kill? Olson/ Boies have had an awesome proactive kill up their sleeve. Going to be interesting to see how it plays.

  • 161. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I'm sorry you have had to go through this, and I'm glad that you have had the strength to not only do what was right for your fellow Americans, but also to come here and share it.

    Thank you!

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 162. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Mike —

    I am honored that you would share my comment – I thank you. We are extraordinarily fortunate to be alive in an age where change is taking place. In the future, homosexuality will be recognized as natural, normal, and in no way detrimental to society.

    That future will look back on these days (as on the days of racial civil rights) as a turning point, when humanity acknowledged its own prejudice and denounced it as an unacceptable restriction of civil rights.

    The strength of every marriage should come from within, and not from without. Mike, bless you, your spouse, and your family — this is a great time to be alive!

    Best,

    Tracy

  • 163. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Well, he has probably learned quite a bit from his wife over the years. After all, he did marry into the Kennedy family, and Maria is a very highly respected broadcast journalist.

  • 164. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Andrew,

    I am honored that you have responded to my comment – I thank you. History is unfolding, and I am more than blessed to have a chance to play some small part, tiny as it may be. Today, justice is being done, the way our founders intended it. I feel so proud to be an American today. :)

    Tracy

  • 165. Chrys  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Heh. I did that. Felt great.

  • 166. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Very kind of you, Eden, and of course, not required. Btw, if you're not aware of it, my Scribd account has all public documents filed with the court since I started obtaining them through my PACER account on 4/22/10 (except transcripts, which are available at AFER). http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

    While the Justia site has them eventually, there is often a significant time lag in getting them posted, and sometimes the documents aren't complete.

  • 167. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I was so hoping their website was 2M4M.com LOL!! (right up there with the recent 'bareback' tweet gaff. :)

    But just out of curiosity, I checked to see what was at that site and it seems they might have been trying to obtain the domain. 2M4M.org turns up a page of interesting sponsored links.

  • 168. Breaking the Silence  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    That's beautiful, Ray.

  • 169. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Thank you for sharing with us, Tracy. I am reminded again that the world has so many people who are fair-minded, who understand the fundamental value in equality and justice for all.

    It's so easy to get caught up in listening to the fringe element, driven by fear and ignorance. I just need to come back and read comments like these from you, Tracy, to put the world back in perspective.

  • 170. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Thanks, PDN. What's your source for that information?

  • 171. Felyx  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    A "cloud of uncertainty" presages a "gathering storm" which is followed by Rainbow Pride!!!

    Felyx

  • 172. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    I would marry you Kathleen, sight unseen, just because of all the good stuff you do around here, and how darned SMART you are.

    But I wouldn't want your boyfriend to object. :)

  • 173. Joel  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Somewhat off-topic, but I just took a peak at the very unscientific poll that topix has been conducting regarding support for marriage equality:
    http://www.topix.net/issue/gay-marriage/las-vegas

    At present, the national numbers show that 9482 people have voted for marriage equality, while only 8060 have voted against.

  • 174. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    They DO have Jesus… but according to the Constitution, small plastic figurines of possibly fictional characters have not yet been given the right to vote. If they had, fanboys across America would RULE.

    I am sorry, was that snarky?

  • 175. Straight Dave  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    "We don't need no stinkin' evidence."

  • 176. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    I am not sure, but I think it could work in our favor EITHER way, whether there is an appeal or not.

    If there is, then the chance to go to SCOTUS moves quicker, of course.

    If there is not, California gets equal marriage right away, and the case stands as a model and precedent for cases all around the country, one of which will, certainly, eventually get to SCOTUS, but with more precedent behind it.

    The first way might move faster, but the second might be stronger once it gets there. At least that is how I see it?

  • 177. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Yeah, Andrew. That's among my favorites.

  • 178. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Kathleen –

    I am glad to play some part in renewing your faith in the American public. Tragically, the fundamentalist right seem to be far more vocal than those who take a moderate stand. I would bet a month's salary that the populace truly favors equal rights for all — but the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. Prop 8 passed largely due to the right's "protect the children" campaign. I believe in a God who loves all people equally — homosexuality is a common phenomenon in the world He created. God loves all of us equally. I hope that you (and others) will not lose faith in the fact that God supports your family and your right to love as you choose. I am heterosexual, and I believe in a God who values the rights of all homosexuals as equally as he values my own. Any other God is not worth a second thought.

    Best,

    Tracy

  • 179. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    All right. I have just totally and utterly broken my bank account, and bought my ticket to Washington DC for August 15th.

    Yay!

  • 180. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Interesting recent scholarship on the ex-gay movement discussed here: http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/08/ex-gay-mo

  • 181. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Does that mean that my 6" tall Sulu figurine can't vote this November? Darn it! And I just sent in his Voter Registration card this week. (Snark! Snark!)

  • 182. Anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    If you have a six foot tall Sulu figure… he can have MY vote!

    :)

  • 183. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Tracy, it has taken me some time (overflowing inbox syndrome), but I am now going to respond to your post.
    First, like others have expressed, I am so sorry that you had to go through this betrayal, but at the same time, I am so glad, and so grateful, that you did not allow it to make you bitter.
    Second, I am so glad you shared this with us, and I am so glad that you adhere to the true fundamentals of your religion which includes human rights for all. You are truly a gem in this world.
    Third, I want to say, welcome to the P8TT family. It is such a joy to see another member come out of the woodwork and add to the vitality of this family we have built here. You are one more blessing to be thankful for.

  • 184. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    No, he is only 6 inches tall. That is all that would fit on the dash of my Suzuki SX4 Crossover, and I have the Sulu figure because I named my car after George Takei's Star Trek character. I figured, my car is Japanese, I am gay, George Takei is gay and of Japanese stock, so why not name my car for someone I respect and admire for his acting talent and his honesty and integrity. Seems to have been a good move, since I haven't has any problems with my car, so I guess my SX4 Crossover likes having an honorable name.

  • 185. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Awww, Anonygirl, thanks. Just so you know, the feeling's mutual. Smart is the sexiest thing in the world to me. Toss in talented, compassionate and funny and I've just been swept off my feet. Hugs and kisses.

  • 186. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Just wonderful, thanks for sharing! :)

    a huge Double Rainbow in our backyard… the likes of which we had never seen before!!!

    Dramatization. ;-D

  • 187. Tracy  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Richard —

    Firstly, I am greatly honored and humbled by your acceptance of me as a part of the P8TT community. Thank you – this is such a momentous movement — there is no greater honor.

    Secondly, there is no greater joy in life than love… and love knows no gender. I am heterosexual, and my opinion is this — no future marriage of mine will ever be meaningful if the same commitment cannot be shared by my homosexual peers.

    It is time for equality to be extended to ALL….

  • 188. Lawrence  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    I don't see it's about what the broad "we" want. I am not Kathleen, but Olson/Boies seem to be making a serious claim that the proponents have no standing to appeal. Right now this is to argue that they are unlikely to prevail, but surely they would go on to argue this with the 9th circuit to try and block an appeal? If this holds (I don't have th legal training to have any idea) then it would be over. Olson/Boies represent the plaintiffs and others who want to marry – and it does not help them to wait for years of appeals. So surely they should be trying to close it out? I think there is a longer game in play here than previuosly imagined and a "win CA now" gambit is at least being attempted.

  • 189. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    If there was a way to block Prop 8 on legal grounds, it should have been blocked. I still find this highly vexing. Perhaps the silver lining is an ironclad federal court ruling, but still…very risky.

  • 190. David from Sandy Uta  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    The heads of the Gang of Fifteen who lead the Locally Dominant Sect here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah) are going to explode like the Martians in the 1996 already-a-classic “Mars Attacks!” if the Prop. 8 Proponents are not allowed to file an appeal as suggested in the “Plaintiffs’…Opposition…for a Stay Pending Appeal,” page 3, line 12 and following.

    Did you see the pictures of the Wednesday evening celebration in the Salt Lake Tribune? <a&gt <a href="http://;http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50052100-75/marriage-gay-utah-church.html.csp” target=”_blank”>;http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50052100-75/marriage-gay-utah-church.html.csp Mother Nature gave the equality supporters a beautiful rainbow. (I actually saw two different rainbows on Wednesday—very rare, very beautiful.)

    David

  • 191. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Wow. Several of those photos, with the huge RAINBOW as the background — are just breathtaking!!

  • 192. Jim  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Could anyone point me toward the full document of the Prop 8 Proponents' motion for stay? I don't see any link for it in here. Thanks!!

  • 193. Dpeck  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    nightshayde, I say yes, by all means go to City Hall on the first day they start marrying same sex couples. I was at SF City Hall on the first day of the SSMs and it is something I will never forget. You will certainly be welcomed and appreciated, you will absolutely love it, and you DESERVE to experience the joy for yourself first hand. You've certainly earned it. Do not miss it. And bring a friend!

  • 194. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Here you go: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35328289/Doc-705

  • 195. Jim  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Thank you!

  • 196. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    You're welcome. You can find most all public court filings from April forward (except transcripts) here: http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

  • 197. Jim  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Thanks! Interesting reading. They quote cases back to 1923! I get that precedent is important, but really, 1923? Does that help their case to quote such old rulings?

  • 198. Eden James  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Very cool on the scribd account. I've had trouble embedding Scribd docs on this WordPress site. If anyoone has a solution, fire away.

  • 199. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    @Nightshade, cupcakes with rainbow frosting would be awesome. Anything to share the joy would be awesome.

  • 200. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    But if letting Imperial County join as a defendant-intervenor would have made the case appealable, I wonder if the decision not to let Imperial County join is in itself appealable?

  • 201. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    Ann, I would think it is.

  • 202. David from Sandy Uta  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Reading the proponent’s Aug. 3 motion for a stay (just now)after having read the Aug. 4 ruling reminds me (for some really unknown reason) of a Keystone Kops movie. I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but it seems kind of STOOOPID to present a motion that does not actually address the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in Judge Walker’s ruling. . . many words. . . a few pratfalls. . .lots of activity. . . acomplishing nothing.

  • 203. David from Sandy Uta  |  August 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Speaking of rainbows, please see the link to pictures of the Wednesday night celebration in Salt Lake City in my comment below (currently numbered 196, but that will change).

  • 204. Gray Coyote  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Yes, they are.

  • 205. Gray Coyote  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    OMG – reading this section on whether they have standing to appeal is so awesome. Static kill? Olson/ Boies have had an awesome proactive kill up their sleeve. Going to be interesting to see how it plays.

    AFER/San Francisco essentially publicly decapitated Yes On 8's standing.

  • 206. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    I can hear all the way out here on the left coast. :)

  • 207. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Yes, it actually does. You see, the further back they go with the citations, the more proof there is of the history of the precedents and the stronger the evidence. I have, in fact, seen cases that have cited precedents going back into the 1800's. And there have been many cases that have cited Marbury v. Madison from 1803.

  • 208. Straight Grandmother  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    I do feel FREEDOM and EQUALIY in the air. I read the joint brief(?) motion(?) don't know the right term, that was filed by our side. I don't see how Judge Walker will issue the Stay. IMHO, the other side had noting at trial and they got nothing now. Plus I like the fact that our side wrote a kind of sarcastic motion, thye really called the anti equality group on the carpet. I think the wedding bells are gonna ring :)

  • 209. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    @Ann S

    "But if letting Imperial County join as a defendant-intervenor would have made the case appealable, I wonder if the decision not to let Imperial County join is in itself appealable?"

    Or is there anything preventing them from being added to the appeal at the 9th circuit? If the 'original defendants' can step back in, even tho they didn't defend in the federal, could another jurisdiction with a 'legitimate state interest' step in?

  • 210. Johnny In Georgia  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    I follow Volokh too — he's in a class of conservative law professors that repeatedly swear they are pro-SSM, then go on to cynically beat down positive development. It's weird. See also Jack Balkin of Yale.

    Read the comments on the Perry posts on his blog — it's like a lynching mob — obsessions on incest, bestiality, polygamy, protestations that one judge has taken away the votes of 7 million Californians — really no inkling of legal/constitutional analysis by most and no response by Volokh or moderators.

  • 211. Ray in MA  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    Rarely do I change my desktop background… I just did now.

  • 212. Straight Grandmother  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Joel said, "Don’t we WANT an appeal though? (I know we don’t want the stay pending appeal.)"

    My reply, Well I guess that it sorta depends on what part of the country you live in. If you are for Marriage Equality and you or someone you know or love who is GLBT and wants to get married AND you live in California, well then the best for you is that the Defendent Intervieners do not have standing to appeal and it is the law of the land for California.

    If you live anywhere other than California you would want this to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

    If the Defendent Intervieners are not granted standing and the ruling stands only for the 9th District then Olson and Bois have to repeat this whole thing again in another state I guess, sigh…

  • 213. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    Must confess, I've followed a link to his blog on a few occasions, and felt uncomfortable, so I generally pass now. It's not that I don't read anyone who disagrees with me, but I prefer to get my analysis from people who value equal rights, not say they do in one sentence and advocate against in the next. John (Jonathan?) Rauch is another one.

  • 214. Shelly  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    we are 2 females. I have been lucky to know my now wife for almost 3 yrs. We for married last year in Canada. I am from the U.S. and she is from Italy. We have 4 beautiful girls, me 3 from a previous marriage and she has 1 girl and we have 3 beautiful grandchildren 2 boys and 1 girl that we adore and miss terribably!!!! Since ssm is not federally recognized in the U.S. nor Italy we are forced to go back and forth of which is not good 4 our framily nor our pocketbook. We miss our kids & framily and miss out on hollidays & birthdays our grandsons 1st bday, our oldest daughters bday, & maybe our grandaughters b-day we do not want to miss anymore and we want to go home!! We still do not know what is going on since we r in Italy as we write this. Our girls & gc r in the U.S. awaiting eagerly on our return. We have no news here so the internet is our only source please can anyone tell us if the ban is lifted since my wife and i r married could i finally sponsor her or do we need to wait another 100 yrs 4 that 2 happen? We plan on going back to the U.S. in Sept we are still looking for colleges for my wife 2 attend so she can be with me living in our home. Any info that anyone has is welcomed please email us at sweetpeasimluv@yahoo.com. Have a great day!!! I hope i can see the future as bright when this dam ban is lifted and all legal issues for glbt american or forign are in the past and stay there!!!

  • 215. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:07 am

    @ Straight Grandmother. You are so right. The wedding bells are going to ring. In fact, I am going to be making the decorations for the reception we will have for family and friends after we return from the second trip to DC (that pesky little waiting period and the fact that they are so bogged down you have to book your officiant 8-10 weeks in advance in order to apply now). And I will have the laptop set up to video it and will put it up on FB and send a link here, as well as try to find somewhere to put it that allows longer than 10-minute videos for that and for the two weddings (LEGAL one in DC and chasunah here in NC) so that all of my P8TT family will get to see it. And I hope that we get to meet your children and their families on at least one of our trips. I will keep you posted on the dates once we are able to get everything worked out on them.
    I hear rainbow wedding bells starting to ring, and it is a BEAUTIFUL sound! Just absolutely BEAUTIFUL! Equality is such a wonderful feeling.

  • 216. Steve  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:09 am

    Same-sex marriages aren't recognized by the federal government. So you'll have to wait until DOMA is repealed. :(
    Or maybe until the immigration system is reformed and incorporates UAFA (Uniting American Families Act)

  • 217. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:36 am

    That woman needs to eat a sandwich or something. She is so thin that she looks haggard; my broomstick is bigger around than her arms. :-(

    Love,
    Fiona (who agrees that First Lady Shriver is a highly respected broadcast journalist, but worries about her health)

  • 218. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:38 am

    This is the same bizarre argument that a former friend advanced: overturning Prop 8 discriminates against her as a single person.

    Um, what?

    She's LDS and, frankly, I think she doesn't want to admit that she's in lockstep with her church leadership because of the rather liberal circle in which we happen to run.

    Single peoples' rights haven't changed at all. The whole notion is bizarre.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 219. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:41 am

    And I thought I was the only one who had noticed that. And not just Maria. Have you seen her cousin, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg lately? And she used to look so pretty, just like her mother. But she, too, has been losing weight and is looking haggard. For these two ladies, who are only a few years older than I am, they are looking way too old.

  • 220. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:47 am

    One of my friends has signed up to volunteer at SF City Hall to assist with logistics, etc., the minute the licenses are issued again. Maybe contacting your local municipality and offering to do the same would be a good idea!

    Love,
    Fiona (who has indeed been to a joy-filled lesbian wedding — and the sky still hasn't fallen)

  • 221. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:47 am

    Thank you, Elizabeth. To be quite honest, this is another of those times when I wish BZ and I lived in California. We would be heading to Norwalk just so you could be the one to issue our marriage license, and we would then round up all of our P8TT family and find an open park for the ceremony. And yes, someone would have to bring a camcorder so we could let the P8TT family outside of California see the wedding.

  • 222. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:49 am

    Okay, I hadn't heard about this — but it just made me tear up. What a beautiful, wonderful gesture of love and support.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 223. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:53 am

    We don't have ex post facto law in this country; those theoretical marriages couldn't "revert" to anything. That's why the CA Supreme Court (to the disgust of the Yes on 8 forces) could not and would not judicially annul the existing same-sex marriages.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 224. Sagesse  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Shelly,

    On a halfway related topic, it would seem that there are many adult children of same sex couples who could give testimony about their families growing up. Adult for this purpose could be anyone over the age of, say, fifteen who is old enough to know their own mind (speaking from the point of view of the unconvinced; not to insult the nine-year-olds who also know their own mind :)). This would add the voices of the families, broadly defined to the debate.

  • 225. fiona64  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Brian Brown said: And that the Christian faith, like the beliefs of other traditional faiths, “harm[s] gays and lesbians.”

    Except, Brian (Hi, Brian and Louis), that is not what Walker said.

    When you have to lie to make your point, Brian, perhaps you should question whether your point has any validity.

    I do love the dunning letter attached to the scare tactics, though.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 226. DazedWheels  |  August 7, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Kathleen,
    I hate asking you to do anything more, but (knew it was coming, huh?) do you happen to be able to access the two documents, #148 and #331, referred to in the quote below? If you do, will you please do your download, upload, rename magic to scribd so we can read the context of those references?
    Thanks so much for everything! David

    (BTW, the "Dazed" and "Wheels" are mispronunciations of my first and last name, for email address purposes)

    "… As Proponents themselves have recognized, “because 12 the standing of Defendant-Intervenors to appeal from a ruling holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional 13 has been called into question (see Doc # 148 at 15), the very real possibility exists that none of the 14 current parties to this case would be both willing and able to appeal such a ruling by this Court (or to 15 seek Supreme Court review of such a ruling by the Court of Appeals).” Doc #331 at 3. …"

  • 227. Sagesse  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Fiona,

    Both her mother Eunice and her grandmother Rose were equally frail-looking. I think what you see is Fitzgerald metabolism. As Richard notes, similarly for Caroline Kennedy.

  • 228. DazedWheels  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:07 am

    Oops, I just noticed when I copied/pasted the quote from the pdf I left in the line numbers. Sorry for any confusion. :-)

  • 229. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:11 am

    That's right. I had forgotten about that. And as a fan and occasional volunteer for Special Olympics, I still miss Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

  • 230. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 7, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I'm planning a trip to CA in October…Hoping (and praying!) that Stay will be removed…this post gives me hope! If so, plan to Marry my Dear Partner with my son as a witness…too many thoughts, feelings, to express but thank you to all for collective energizes to make this a reality.

    Love and Light –

  • 231. Greg  |  August 7, 2010 at 2:47 am

    I think the procedure would go something like this: a notice of appeal is filed; plaintiffs would then file a motion to dismiss the appeal with the 9th Circuit, based on lack of standing to bring the appeal; Proponents would oppose the motion; the 9th Circuit would then decide the motion and either permit the appeal to proceed or dismiss the appeal. It's hard for me to imagine the 9th Circuit would dismiss the appeal, however. If Proponents had standing to defend PropHate in the district court, how could they not have standing to appeal the district court's decision?

  • 232. Paulie  |  August 7, 2010 at 2:53 am

    How long until they say Arnold is gay and biased?

    Or some Hollywood liberal?!

  • 233. Ronnie  |  August 7, 2010 at 2:58 am

    They just did on a couple of the regularly used anti-Gay Facebook pages….. : / …..Ronnie

  • 234. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:04 am

    NOM has been calling Governor Schwarzenegger a Hollywood liberal ever since he and Attorney General Brown refused to defend Prop H8 and their team had to step in as D-I's.

  • 235. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:23 am

    I imagine that the motion denying Imperial County's motion to intervene would be appealed to the 9th Circuit, at least. But again, this is not my area of expertise.

  • 236. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:27 am

    If they are unable to appeal (and I imagine the 9th Circuit and possibly the SCOTUS will have to rule on that question before we know for sure) then Prop 8 is gone (ding, dong, the witch is dead) (well, it's unenforceable, not exactly gone) and we will have marriage equality in California.

    This still helps all of us in the long run because more and more marriages help to pile up more and more evidence that the sky won't fall, society won't fall apart, kids will flourish, etc.

    It's not as glorious as Boies and Olsen taking this case to the SCOTUS for the BIG win, but I'd take it in a heartbeat.

  • 237. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:35 am

    It's the way our stupid proposition system works in CA. Once the signatures are gathered, there is no legal review of the constitutionality of the proposed law or amendment. There is review of the title and wording that will go on the ballot, and it has to comply with the "1-subject" rule, but that's about it.

  • 238. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:40 am

    The whole Flowers from the Heartland phenomenon was so beautiful and moving. People were standing in line, some of them for hours, to get licenses, and people from around the country spontaneously began sending flowers to random couples waiting in line. This was in 2004. My brother and his husband had already gotten married, so one of his childhood friends sent flowers to someone else in line.

    Alas, all of those marriages from 2004 were voided. The 2008 ones still stand, though, from that brief window of marriage equality we had.

  • 239. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I don't know about other places, but at SF City Hall there is a grand marble staircase down the middle of the space below the rotunda. Most of the couples were getting married on the 2nd floor, and then would walk down the grand staircase.

    Everyone on the first floor would stop whatever they were doing to applaud and cheer each new couple.

    It was such an amazing day. I'm so glad I was there. If you go, you won't be sorry. If you take a few flowers or cupcakes or anything celebratory to share, it'll make some people's day that much more special.

  • 240. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:50 am

    I don't think we'll see a full-blown appellate proceeding without first having the 9th Circuit decide on the standing question. They may simply say that Imperial County must be joined as defendant-intervenor and let it proceed on that basis. But I don't really know. I haven't had a chance to look at the factors that go into deciding to let a party join as defendant-intervenor.

  • 241. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Anyone that's in the L.A. area can volunteer as a Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages and it's a blast., You have to go through a short training and I have NO CLUE how they'll roll in new volunteers if we get immediate relief from the stay this week or next, but you can notify your local Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's office (RR/CC for short) of your wish to volunteer. More info at the bottom of this page: http://www.lavote.net/CLERK/Marriages.cfm

    My guess is that Dean Logan will instruct the Clerk's office to contact the people who enrolled as volunteers in 2008 first so they can get started right away, but let 'em know you're interested. BTW, they ALWAYS need help so if you want a great longterm volunteer gig, performing weddings for the Clerk's office is pretty cool (cooler when marriage equality is in place, of course.) I'm hoping that's going to be the permanent state of things SOON.

    And when it is….see you there, P8TTers!

  • 242. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Updated copies of THE AGENDA can still be obtained in the internets, at least according to Dr. William Tam. If I remember right, we had all agreed to implement the moral fabric destruction before lunch, but then M. Gallagher and A. Pugno were supposed to chart out the rest of the afternoon activities–satanic bacchanalia of some sort, they were calling around to price out chair rentals and moonbouncers–but they didn't get their proposal in on time. Instead I'd like to suggest that after lunch we have…a few thousand same-sex weddings?? Let me know what you think people would prefer.

  • 243. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:06 am

    You'll be with us in spirit :) And I'm sure you'll see all kinds of footage on YouTube et al when weddings resume with equality here in CA and L.A…..may it be soon! (like, NOW!)

  • 244. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Here's hoping that we can also get these two for a case here in NC to strike down the part of DOMA that deals with the full faith and credit clause. When that is gone, all of us here in NC who have gone out of state and gotten married, including those who went to CA in 2008, will be able to have our legal marriages recognized by the governmental agencies and others who use the same determinations here.

  • 245. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Maybe that should be the next proposition placed before the people of California. that in addition to all the existing requirements, that any proposed ballot initiative must be shown to be fully constitutional as applied to the US Constitution in addition to the CA State Constitution. In fact, I am quite sure you and the other lawyers here could draft that up quite well, Ann.
    Which reminds me of something I have been wondering about. What areas of legal expertise does each of our commenters here have? I have noticed that each of you brings such a huge amount of knowledge and experience to us, and I love it. But what areas do each of you consider to be your particular strength within the law?

  • 246. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I would love to be there just to share one of my favorite wedding songs with the couples–singing it over and over all day, and handing each couple a copy of the lyrics in Rainbow-colored type.

  • 247. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:30 am

    How about we do the weddings BEFORE lunch? That way we have more time for the massive wedding reception. Who wants challah topped with a rainbow of decorative sprinkles?

  • 248. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:30 am

    @Richard — hear, hear!

  • 249. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:33 am

    @Richard, normally I sit around all day drafting and negotiating office leases. I am so not cut out to be a trial lawyer (of course, many trial lawyers aren't cut out to be real estate lawyers, either). Yesterday is the first time in many years I have read actual cases, LOL. If anyone needs an office, retail or industrial lease negotiated for them in CA, I'm your gal.

  • 250. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:39 am

    @Richard — I forgot to add that just outside City Hall that day there was a lot of music. The Gay Men's Chorus sang, another chorus sang (I think — we were inside) and by the time we left a local radio station had set up and was playing music and broadcasting from the lawn out front. It was a big party outside, with lots of support. Oddly enough, no protestors that I saw that day — they had shown up the evening before, June 16, to protest the only wedding that happened the very first day in SF — Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

    Yes, the wedding of two 80-something women who had been together over 50 years — very threatening to society. Sadly, Del Martin died near the end of August, 2008.

  • 251. Kathleen  |  August 7, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Justia has most of the documents. The problems I encountered with the Justia site was that it sometimes was slow in updating and the documents are often missing important attachments, which is why I began obtaining them directly online and uploading them to Scribd.

    I think both the items you want are at the site in their entirety: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candc

    If there's anything you want that isn't there, let me know. BTW, if you're on facebook, you can reach me through PM there. I'm "Kathleen Perrin" – find me on the wall of the "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" page.

  • 252. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Cool. When I am looking for an intelligent real estate attorney, I will look for you.

  • 253. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 6:16 am

    @Richard — and I'll be happy to refer you to an intelligent one, LOL.

  • 254. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Yes, it is very sad that Del died so shortly after she and Phyllis were finally able to LEGALLY get married and have that marriage recognized by the CIVIL government. But at least she died in Phyllis's arms. That is the way I want the end to be–In BZ's arms, with the full knowledge that our marriage will be recognized in a court of law, in the hall of records, and by the coroner's office on my death certificate. G-d Willing, my death is a long way off, but I still want the government to recognize my marriage. I don't give a rat's behind if Maggie Gallagher's, Brian Brown's, and Louis J. Marinelli's church recognize it or not, just so long as the civil government does!

  • 255. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 6:26 am

    @Richard — from your lips to God's ears.

  • 256. VIDEOS: Brian Brown spins&hellip  |  August 7, 2010 at 7:00 am

    […] 2 p.m. EST. Arisha wrote this piece on Friday, but we had to bump it after the news came down that Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions against a stay in the Prop 8 …. You’ll definitely want to read Arisha’s thoughtful reflection piece below about what […]

  • 257. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Thank you, Ann. And you are the intelligent RE lawyer I was referring to. You have proven your intelligence more than once on here. And you have to be intelligent in order to make it through law school to start with. I remember how challenging my business law class was when I was going for my AAS in Business Administration. And the text book! You could have done arm curls with that one.

  • 258. Ann S.  |  August 7, 2010 at 7:04 am

    @Richard, thank you, I was trying on a bit of self-deprecating humor, there. You're very kind. I wasn't fishing for a compliment, truly.

  • 259. Alan E.  |  August 7, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I may actually need a real estate attorney soon.

  • 260. Bipartisan call: Let the &hellip  |  August 7, 2010 at 11:24 am

    […] rule whether to grant it. But there's bipartisan pressure urging Judge Walker not to do so, and to let California ring right now. First, Democratic Attorney General and Gubernatorial nominee Jerry […]

  • 261. Jerry Brown y Arnold Schw&hellip  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    […] Jerry Brown y Arnold Schwarzenegger, juntos para la igualdad Filed under: política,sociedad — Etiquetas: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Jerry Brown, matrimonios del mismo sexo, Prop 8, Prop 8 trail — sonofsancho @ 20:51 Nunca me hubiera imaginado a Arnold Schwarzenegger uniéndose con el ex gobernador de California y actual procurador estatal (y también candidato para gobernador otra vez) Jerry Brown para hacer todo lo posible que los matrimonios del mismo sexo sean legales lo más pronto posible ahora que Pr… […]

  • 262. Lee  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    I can't help it, Ronnie. That made me laugh. XD

  • 263. Bipartisan call: Let the &hellip  |  August 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    […] whether to grant it. But there’s bipartisan pressure urging Judge Walker not to do so, and to let California ring right now. First, Democratic Attorney General and Gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown: […]

  • 264. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip  |  August 7, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    […] Schwarzenegger and Brown ask court to let marriages resume; AFER files motion opposing a stay by Brian Devine State Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just filed papers asking Judge […] […]

  • 265. Mark  |  August 9, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Did the defendants file a motion with the judge? I have seen the three motions opposing a stay, but I cannot believe there was not a motion filed requesting it.

  • 266. Kathleen  |  August 9, 2010 at 2:44 am

    They filed their motion before the decision was in. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35328289/Doc-705

  • 267. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    He's ok with it , now that he is not up for re-election!

  • 268. Kim  |  September 1, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Since the court has decided that same sex marriage should be the same as man/woman marriage, then when they stayed the licensing of marriages, they should have stayed ALL marriage licenses: separate is not equal.
    If there are to be no gay marriages, there should be no marriages of any kind until this is resolved.

  • 269. Bob  |  September 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Kim, I agree, no marriages until the issue is resolved there was an attmept to make that statement , with the sit in

  • 270. Anonymous  |  January 19, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    We absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be just what I’m looking for.

    Would you offer guest writers to write content for you?

    I wouldn’t mind producing a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write
    with regards to here. Again, awesome web log!

  • 271. firma sprz_taj_ca wroc_aw Lucjan Zi_ba  |  March 11, 2014 at 7:33 am

    Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your
    blog and wished to mention that I have truly enjoyed browsing your weblog
    posts. After all I will be subscribing to your feed and I’m hoping you write once more very soon!

  • 272. Watch Barcelona Real Madrid El clasico Online here  |  April 16, 2014 at 10:30 am

    I have been browsing online greater than 3 hours these days, but I
    never discovered any attention-grabbing article like yours.
    It’s pretty value sufficient for me. Personally, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you
    probably did, the internet will likely be much more
    useful than ever before.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!