Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed


Trial analysis

[tweetmeme source=”CourageCampaign”]

Share on Facebook
By Eden James

Get ready, everyone. Within the next 24 hours, same-sex couples may be able to get married in California.

Judge Walker has announced that he will render a decision on the stay between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. PST on Thursday. From the Sacramento Bee:

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban says he is ready to rule on whether gay marriages should resume immediately in the state or await an appeals court’s input.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said he would issue his decision Thursday by noon on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision.

What does it all mean? Our friends at Marriage Equality USA sent the following to their members a little while ago:

If Judge Walker lifts the stay, it is likely it will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the 9th Circuit, it would be reviewed by a 3-person panel and their decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit and eventually the US Supreme Court. But because the US Supreme Court is not in session until October, the decision about lifting the stay would be appealed to the Justice in charge, which for the 9th Circuit is Justice Kennedy. We are witnessing history and it is crucial that as we continue to move through the courts, we must build support with the court of public opinion and provide a human face to this issue.

There’s much more, of course. Here’s what the Prop 8 Trial Tracker’s Brian Devine wrote a few days ago about Judge Walker’s ruling on the stay:

By Brian Devine

I predict we’ll have Judge Walker’s ruling on the Motion to Stay either today or tomorrow.  And I predict he’ll deny the stay, allowing same-sex couples full marriage equality for the first time since that bittersweet night in November 2008.

While we wait, let’s take a look the issue of “standing” and what it means to the stay and the appeal of Judge Walker’s opinion.

What’s “Standing”

Article III of the US Constitution gives Federal Courts the limited jurisdiction to decide actual cases or controversies. This is referred to as “Article III standing.” To have standing to bring a lawsuit or to pursue an appeal, a party must show that he or she has suffered an: “injury in fact —— an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

To appeal a decision, the Prop 8 supporters must show that allowing same-sex couples the right to get married somehow invades their rights and causes them harm.  Remember, though, that Judge Walker already ruled that “Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.” In other words, if Prop 8 did not exist, the rights of those people who support Prop 8 would not be affected.  Consistent with this holding, Judge Walker should find that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing because they will not suffer any “concrete and particularized” harm if Prop 8 is not enforced.

The best argument that Prop 8 supporters can make is that they would be injured by the simple fact that California is not enforcing a law passed by the People.  But the Supreme Court has held that “[an] asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.” (Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984))

I think there’s a good chance Judge Walker will find that the Prop 8 supporters lack standing.  The only parties in the case who do have standing (the Plaintiffs and the State) have not appealed and have affirmatively said that they do not want a stay.  This means that if Judge Walker finds that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing, he also will deny the motion to stay.

Didn’t Judge Walker Already Rule That The Prop 8 Supporters Have Standing?

No.  Judge Walker decided that the Prop 8 Backers could intervene, not that they have Article III standing.  To intervene in a case, a party does not need to show that they have standing. That’s because a “case or controversy” already exists.  (The Plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they were being denied their constitutional right to get married.)  Since both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants already had standing, the Court had jurisdication over the “case.” From there, deciding that the Prop 8 supporters could intervene in the case was an easy call.  The law of the Ninth Circuit holds that a “public interest group may have a protectable interest in defending the legality of a measure it had supported.”

But this does not mean that it has standing. To the contrary, on several occasions the Supreme Court has recognized that a party who was allowed to intervene in litigation does not necessarily have standing.  For example, the Supreme Court said:

[I]f the original party on whose side a party intervened drops out of the litigation, the intervenor will then have to establish its own standing to continue pursuing litigation. (Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64, (1986))

Could This End Here And Now?

Maybe at the Ninth Circuit.  While the popular spin is that this case “is certain to be resolved at the Supreme Court,” that’s not entirely clear.  If Judge Walker rules that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing, that does not necessarily mean they can’t appeal.  The Ninth Circuit will independently decide the issue of standing.  But if the Ninth Circuit decides that the supporters of Prop 8 do not have standing, it will reach only the issue of standing, not the much harder question of deciding whether Prop 8 is constitutional.

If A Stay Is Granted, Can The State Still Issue Marriage Licenses?

Yes.  All a stay does is prevent the Court Clerk from entering judgment.  It does not erase Judge Walker’s decision, and it does not prohibit the defendant (the State) from voluntarily complying with the decision by issuing marriage licenses to all couples, regardless of gender.  A Federal District Judge has declared that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.  Even if judgment in the case is stayed pending appeal, it would be perfectly reasonable for the State to decide that it will stop enforcing Prop 8 until and unless Judge Walker’s decision is reversed by another Court.

If the State began enforcing Judge Walker’s opinion on its own, I would expect the Prop 8 supporters to file a new lawsuit (in State Court) seeking an injunction requiring the State to enforce Prop 8. This might bring back memories of 2004 when the Supreme Court held that the City and County of San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However, that case (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco) was based on California Constitution Article III, section 3.5 which prohibits administrative agencies from deciding on their own to not enforce laws based on their belief that the law is unconstitutional.  However, if the Governor or the Attorney General made that decision, section 3.5 does not apply.  I haven’t researched it, but I don’t know that anything would prohibit the Governor or the Attorney General from deciding to enforce a District Court’s order declaring Prop 8 invalid, even if that judgment were stayed pending appeal.

So with that, we now wait for Judge Walker order on the Motion to Stay. . .  Stay tuned . . .

UPDATE BY EDEN: Chad Griffin, Board President for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, representing the plaintiffs, released this statement:

“The court’s ruling against Proposition 8 should go into effect now. Proposition 8 is unequivocally unconstitutional. It would be a grave injustice to countless Americans for this denial of fundamental rights to last any longer.”

Check out the comment thread on this post. Along with other dedicated Trial Trackers, the always-reliable Kathleen is providing answers to several questions about Thursday’s decision and the future of the case.


  • 1. Michelle Evans  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Can't wait. I want my time machine

  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love ya, tomorrow!

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:25 pm


  • 4. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I for one, will be here waiting. After all, I have a rabbi in the house I will have to notify as soon as the decision comes down.

  • 5. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Grrr… I have to be on a conference call meeting tomorrow and it starts at 9 AM. I really don't look forward to being stuck in a meeting all distracted and missing the big event.

    But the good news is, I'm the guy in charge of the meeting.

    I'm betting it's gonna be a short one ; )

  • 6. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Okay, with a line like that, I just could not resist. It's not the Broadway original with Andrea McCardle, but here you go, Ann!

    [youtube =]

  • 7. Ray in MA  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Tick Tock Tick Tock … the clock has started.

  • 8. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    OH, no! What happened to the embed code?

    [youtube =]

  • 9. James Tuttle  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    I'll be here at 9 a.m. Hope to see my fellow trackers here as well. I'm crossing my fingers in hopes of another surprisingly favorable ruling. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!

  • 10. Ronnie  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    It's a hard knocked life….. ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 11. Jeff  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Can't wait to see what happens. Here's to hoping the evening news tomorrow is filled with smiling happy couples embracing their rights!

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Let's see if this one works.

    [youtube =]

  • 13. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    I give up. Ronnie, can you see if you can get it to work?

  • 14. Alto  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm


  • 15. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm


    Finally! I just hope he lifts the stay. If so my partner and I are getting MARRIED :-)

    Next up is the fight for federal rights.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    So, here's a question for all the P8TTs.

    Are there any couples here who will get a license tomorrow if Walker lifts the stay?

  • 17. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Nope. but it's Chris Isaak's Think Of Tomorrow.

  • 18. Dave  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    What happens if the Judge denys the stay, and the worst thing happens and we loose at the Supreme Court. What happens to those who were married from the stay being lifted and the supreme court ruling.

  • 19. In Tears  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I read this site religiously and I am dying to ask someine maybe Kathleen.

    1 – Can this really end right here? If this doesn't go to Appeals or Supreme Court does that mean only CA can marry?

    2 – Can anyone please tell me what is going on with DOMA cases? Did they appeal? What is the deadline? What does it mean!!

    3 – What is the status of United Families Act. Are they going to vote soon? I am afraid there will not be enough democrats in office after this year. please can someone tell me what is going on with that!

    4 – Are there any more cases in other states? Because of Prop8 can other people now start suing for rights in their own state? Please tell me that we are not stuck in limbo for the next decade!!!

    If anyone knows anything start talking please. I am going crazy. people are suffering! Where is the information!!!

  • 20. Greg in OZ  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm


    By the time I get to see it, all the (initial) excitement will be over. According to my reckoning, the decision will be handed down between 2 and 5.00AM my time in Oz!

    As excited as I am for all you guys in CA, I guess I'll just have to wait and check out P8TT as soon as I crawl out of bed (what's the bet I'll spring awake halfway through the night and just HAVE to go and check!).

    Just know that my fingers and toes will be crossed for you all and I hope (like everyone else on here) that the decision is the Right and Just one!

    I'm going to subscribe to this thread though to see all the posts! I want to read EVERY one (as usual – this has become my daily entertainment nowadays LOL)

    Lots o' Love (and luck) to all of you!!!!!!!!

    Greg in Oz

  • 21. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    And if you are, where in California are you located?

  • 22. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Thanks, LLB. don't know what happened with the two I tried to embed. Tried twice with the first one, and then after the second one didn't cooperate either, I just figured it wasn't my night.

  • 23. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Firebug shows your video links have the load_privacy on them. Not sure why though.

  • 24. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Vacaville, CA. It's between San Francisco and Sacramento

  • 25. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Vacaville, CA and my partner works tomorrow, but he should be able to take Friday off. If so, we will go then.

  • 26. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Not tomorrow, but traveling to California first of October. I need to research how being from Utah, I can get married in California. Anyone have advice or information?

  • 27. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I'll take a stab at #1 and #4.

    1. Yes and yes.

    4. Once this case is finally totally over (either tomorrow or after appeals or whatever) THEN people in other states will surely file suit to overturn things similar to prop 8 in their own states because this case will serve as precedent. They can point to this case as an example of how their own case should be decided. Of course, they can file sooner than that too, but having this trial as a precedent will be very helpful to them and can speed things up for all the other states.

  • 28. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Greg, I don't think there's a residency requirement in California. I'll find the link.

  • 29. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Here you go, Greg. If this doesn't answer your questions, let me know and I'll find the answer:

  • 30. Anonygrl  |  August 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Oh crap… I just remembered I have a MEETING tomorrow from 1-2… and I am on the east coast…

    Oh well, I may be late to the party, but I will find a way to check in.

  • 31. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    I missed quite a bit of chatter last week…so forgive my confusion.

    If the Governor and AG of California don't appeal (which they said they wouldn't), can the intervenors appeal? If they can't can the 9th district take it to appeal on their own? Can any other entity appeal?

    I am just curious.

  • 32. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    If the SCOTUS reverses the decision, all marriages performed will be void. That shouldn't happen though. I don't see how they can justify overturning it though.

  • 33. In Tears  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Thankyou for answering. do you have sources? I look all over for info but I can't seem to find enough.

  • 34. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Dpeck, if I can go, will you be holding the same "gay's love Boyes" sign? I'm not sure I can make it but would love to share in the celebration. I'm on the facebook page for this site. Look me up! I'm friends with kathleen,felyx, kevyn, and more.

  • 35. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Everyone might want to take their rain gear for tomorrow. According to NOMbies, OS married couples might be exploding right there on the streets. No more sex for them EVER too…cause they won't be able to procreate any more.

  • 36. James Tuttle  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Rodney and I live in Fresno, CA. And yes, we will get married first thing if we can. All my sweet wedding plans will just have to wait.

  • 37. Bolt  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Equality under the law is a home run. So happy!

    [youtube =]

  • 38. James Tuttle  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    That's hilarious.

  • 39. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    The governor and AG have made it clear they have no intention of appealing. In fact, they submitted memos opposing the request to stay – they want to stop enforcing Prop 8 NOW.

    The 9th circuit can not take this unless there is someone with standing who wants to appeal the decision. There is a serious question of whether the Proponents (D-Is in the trial) have standing to appeal. Walker will probably give us his opinion on this question when he issues his decision tomorrow, as part of the analysis of "likelihood of success on the appeal." (one of the prongs of the test as to whether or not to issue the stay). Of course, no matter what Walker says on the issue, the 9th Circuit will take up that question.

    Imperial County has tried to come in as a D-I specifically to appeal. Walker has already denied that motion. Imperial County has also submitted notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. They are appealing both the denial of the motion to intervene and Walker's decision in the case.

    I expect this whole question–whether Proponents or Imperial County have standing to appeal–to be taken up as a threshold question by the 9th Circuit before moving forward with an appeal of Walker's decision in the case.

  • 40. JonT  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    The same.

  • 41. Mark M  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    How does one dress for Armageddon?

  • 42. Tomato  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    My wife and I married in 2008, before Prop 8. (In our church, by our minister. Think about THAT, Maggie and Brian!) We and our families and our church have been so deeply involved in this whole struggle. P8TT has been my lifeline, though I've never posted. But I wanted to share what my mom said last week in a text message: "Hooray! I'm still a mother-in-law!" I hope there will be many more mothers-in-law tomorrow night! And thank you, everyone on P8TT.

  • 43. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    In a wedding dress?

  • 44. Bolt  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    LLB, the NOMarriage fools haven't had sex in over a decade. Who would have sex with Maggie? It's not that she's obese, but she's ugly to the bone!

  • 45. In Tears  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    One more question, for MA DOMA case. If DOMA is taken down from the law in MA does that mean that mean people can move to MA to get federal benefits? What about immigration sponsorship? It does not take long to be resident of MA and there is no residency requirement for marriage of same-sex persons.

    I want to thank everyone for answering. People from every around the world are watching you. this information is so vital to us all.

  • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Welcome and Congrats!!! Love your Mom too!

  • 47. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    hi LLB,

    There is still some question about whether the defendant-interveners have standing to appeal. They had standing to intervene, but perhaps not to appeal. That decision may or may nto be made tomorrow too.

    Amd if they don't have standing to appeal, there may be nobody else who does, since the Governor and the AG won't appeal it.

    To appeal, a party must show that they stand to lose something if the appeal does not happen. And as we already know, one of the important findings in this trial is that nobody loses a damm thing at all if prop 8 is overturned and we have marriage equality. So who would have standing to appeal??

  • 48. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    If one of the appeals courts (9th Circuit or Supreme Court) overturns Walker's ruling, part of the decision will be a determination of the status of any marriages that occur between now and when they issue their decision. These marriages will not automatically be nullified; it just depends on what the appeals court decides to do about them.

  • 49. Papa Foma  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Excited for tomorrow. Will have fingers crossed.

  • 50. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    But, it is a risk – it is possible that the decision could be overturned and the appeal court could decide to nullify the marriages.

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    I wanted to see what was on the marriage tour site about this…but their site seems to be down. I wonder if there is some prophecy in that ;>)

  • 52. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Others may have to correct me, but my understanding is that since DOMA is federal issue, ending DOMA will affect ALL states, not just the state that bought suit (MA). can someone confirm?

  • 53. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    I think the bigger danger is all those straight people trying to impose themselves on you, when they feel compelled to marry someone of the same sex. Don't forget 'gay marriage' is being forced on them.

  • 54. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Hey Linda, did you hear that? Weddings in Fresno!! I know we have at least one other tracker here who is in Fresno.

  • 55. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    LLB beat me to it. :)

    In wedding attire!!

  • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Very good read for those who are patiently waiting for tomorrow…

    God´s Will Prevails: Prop 8 and Same-Sex Marriage

    Excerpt:No Threat to Heterosexuals Exists. The Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II administrations said nothing about gays and lesbians being a threat to national security. In fact, many gay men and lesbians serve America with pride and dignity in the armed services. Many homosexuals have given their lives to protect the U.S. Constitution and our nation. Unfortunately, "Christian" hate groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage, have attempted to disparage or dismiss this military service. But these organizations and the people who lead them are liars. They are not "true" Christians. We all know that President Ronald Reagan, a liberal Republican and former Democrat, supported gays and lesbians; President Reagan´s son, Ron Reagan, was a dancer for the Joffrey Ballet.

    Read More:

  • 57. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Congratulations! And so glad to hear from you!!

  • 58. Richard Cocco-Doran  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    we're in Silverlake, Los Angeles. Not sure if we want to deal with what I'm sure will be one Hell of a line but, I think eventually we will some time real soon. I'd like to go to a celebratory event though and immerse in the sense of accomplishment that we and everyone on here and through out the community have worked So Damned Hard to acheive. I thank all of you for your efforts! we wouldn't be where we are today with out the perseverance, dedication and GUTS that it took to do it..

  • 59. Phil L  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm


    I jus saw this on The Advocate and was wondering if anyone could elaborate. Was a pro-equality supporter really punched in the stomach at one of the rallies?

  • 60. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Here's a link about the Alaska case:

  • 61. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Yes she was. That was very sad…but many live with this daily. I seriously don't think those people will stop soon…but prayfully one day they will learn their hatred is not 'Christian' values.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Yes. Sadly, she didn't report the incident to the police. Without that police report, with notes about witnesses, it's hard to substantiate the claim.

  • 63. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Ending DOMA would potentially change how the federal government treats same-sex married couples, but may not have much effect on states that do not recognize marriage equality. A state has never had to recognize marriages performed in other states that violate public policy of the state.

    When I was a child, my parents' inter-racial marriage was legal or a misdemeanor, depending on where we lived, up until 1967.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Meant to add. A video interview with the woman was posted here — look through the posts from around the Indianapolis event.

  • 65. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Excellent summary as always, Kathleen. I just want to add that there are cases from the US Supreme Court that would seem to say that the D-Is have no standing to appeal. The one from Arizona, my BIL pointed out, was unanimous (but it was also dismissed on other grounds, so it's not completely clear if that part of the case is binding precedent).

  • 66. Anna Bryan  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Rulings from lower courts only apply in their jurisdiction, so the DOMA cas ruling only applies in MA right now. As odd as it sounds, DOMA is only unconstitutional in MA until it goes to a higher circuit.

  • 67. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Yes, thanks for the clarification Ann. So once DOMA is gone, if you marry in any state that has marriage equality you get that state's beneftis of civil marriage and all of the 1,100+ federal benefits of civil marriage (social security, etc.). Currently, when people marry in a state that has marriage equality, they only get the state benefits and none of the federal benefits or legal protections.

  • 68. Mike K  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Similar to us … Hubby and I were married at the SF City Hall in Oct '08, 2 weeks before the election. And we feel sooooooooo fortunate that we made it in time. Our families have been so supportative, as have been our co-workers and friends. Just wish that Maggie, Brian and the others could see how much happiness our marriage has brought us and those around us. And yes, mega thanks to everyone here and all those fighting the battles. I feel so much more optimistic about the future for our community.

  • 69. Anna Bryan  |  August 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    I don't think CA would void the marriages. They would probably treat them the same as out of state marriages. Those couples are afforded all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, except for the term "married".

  • 70. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Yes, Dpeck, I agree. Getting rid of DOMA would be huge, but it still won't entirely solve the problem. Not until we get our own Loving v. Virginia.

  • 71. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Well, ya know, there are a couple of straight guys here in my area that wouldn't get much of a fight from me if they suddenly felt compelled to impose themselves on me. Just sayin'. : )

  • 72. Anonygrl  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I think that was nightshayde.

  • 73. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    hee hee. I'm picturing Maggie smashing her computer keyboard while screaming at the display. Ever seen that Youtube video of the german kid freaking out and smashing his computer? Yeah, like that (I'd post it here but the subtitles are not at all OK for the workplace – feel free to search for it on your own, though).

  • 74. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    No obscenities in this one

  • 75. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Were you trying to post this video?

  • 76. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Here you go richard…

  • 77. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    I was able to decipher your url

  • 78. Bolt  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Yes LLB, how did you do that?

  • 79. Alan E.  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Well did your friends at Marriage Equality USA send it? The question mark makes it look as if you are questioning it.

  • 80. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Not sure if you really are asking…so

    I snagged the link from firebug, replaced the /v/1- with /watch?v= and removed all the privacy stuff from the end of the video code in the url

  • 81. Alan E.  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    What if you marry in a state it is recognized, then move to another state where it is not recognized? Would federal benefits still be granted?

  • 82. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    @Alan, I believe (and I could be wrong) that for most purposes (immigration is an exception) the federal government considers you married if the state you live in considers you married.

  • 83. Alan E.  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    The "Gays Love Boies" sign is mine. I won't be able to make it over there tomorrow. I had meetings all day which made my ToDo list for tomorrow at work a mile long.

  • 84. The Reverend Canon S  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    California Faith for Equality just issued their press release:

    "It is our deepest hope that tomorrow will be the day that our 6,000 clergy across the state of California will once again be able to offer both equal blessings and equal protection to the couples coming to them to celebrate the sanctity of their marriages."

  • 85. Ann S.  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    @Alan, to (hopefully) clarify my comment about immigration, remember (maybe you're too young) the movie "Green Card"? The feds reserve the right to make their own determination if a marriage is genuine for immigration purposes, even if the marriage is legal under state law.

  • 86. Eden James  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    Typo fixed.

  • 87. JonT  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    LOL, yes Dpeck, I have a similar 'problem' here :)

  • 88. AndrewPDX  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    How about There's Always Tomorrow For Dreams to Come True:

    [youtube =]

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 89. Caryn  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Kathleen, or anyone, do you have any sense of how long the window might be of Judge Walker lifts the stay? If that ruling is appealed, what's the likely response time from the 9th Circuit? Might they possibly even rule same day? How long do we think this window will last?

    Planning to get married tomorrow (already planning a wedding for October, but I guess now it'll be official).

  • 90. Caryn  |  August 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    To Ann S., the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages. That's part of DOMA. So, doesn't matter what state you live in, you don't get federal rights.

  • 91. Franck  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    A bit off-topic, but relevant to the topic of who is allowed to get married and who isn't:

    Not that I have much against first-cousin marriage myself, but some people really need to straighten their priorities. Biologically speaking, kids from these marriages are more at risk than kids in same-gender marriages.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1147 days, as of today.

  • 92. Désiré  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    My related question is this:
    If Judge Walker denies the stay can people get married right away, even while the DIs pursue their appeal (or their legal fight to claim they have standing)? We all know that the DIs will not just give up but can the 9th circuit issue a stay and if so is it immediate? What kind of window are we looking at here?

  • 93. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    That's possible. I'm just sick of being treated differently by my gov. Gays should be allowed to marry in all 50 states and enjoy the same benefits that other married couples do.

  • 94. draNgNon  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    IF the case stops at the district level, the ruling will be no more of a precedent than the Massachussetts DOMA part III ruling is. binding precedent isn't set until Court of Appeals.

    i.e. it's ironic, but it would actually be better (nationally) if someone has standing to appeal.

  • 95. Errin Davenport  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    If the issue is found to not have standing for appeal to the 9th, rest assured that nearly every decision the 9th makes is followed by other Circuits. In fact, keep in mind that the decision could be overturned by a higher court, although support has been nearly unanimous at this point.

    If there is no appeal Judge Walkers argument would become persuasive argument rather than mandatory stare decisis, but the 9th carries a lot of weight in persuasive.

    No matter what happens, people are waking up! Everything is going to be okay!

  • 96. Brittney  |  August 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Might be makin a trip to cali within the next few months ^_^

  • 97. Franck  |  August 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    On-topic now.

    Drat, I will miss that window of opportunity, I just know it. Unless I win big at the lottery soon, I'll never reach California in time.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1147 days, as of today.

  • 98. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    That's our plan too. We were going to have a civil union ceremony but if we can get married the hubby wants to do it right away.

  • 99. Jeff  |  August 11, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    My partner and I live in Daly City (just south of San Francisco), and in the morning we're going to go up to SF and await the word at the courthouse and/or city hall in the hopes of getting married!

  • 100. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 11, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Also subscribing.

    And again I missed everything while sleeping. :( 11 hours of time difference is a bitch.

  • 101. Judy  |  August 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Sacramento. We'll get the license right away, then have a civil ceremony later. I hope getting the license is all we have to do before another stay might come down.

  • 102. Bill  |  August 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Will have a hard time sleeping tonight.
    Me and my partner have waited 15+ years to make it legal and we are so ready to get married.

  • 103. Marlene  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Here's another awesome video from the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mark Fiore:

  • 104. Franck  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    3 – The Uniting American Families Act hasn't been voted on, but the State of California along with (as of today) 31 cities and counties all over the country have passed resolutions urging Congress to pass the bill this year. I suggest that you see here for more info.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1147 days, as of today.

  • 105. Marlene  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    That's not happiness, Mark… it's lust. Didn't you know that love only exists in "normal" marriages, and said love is expressed through procreation?

  • 106. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Not sure if this video will post here…

  • 107. Kathleen  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Where are you located, Keith?

  • 108. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:39 pm

  • 109. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    I’m charging my camera battery and deleting pictures from the memory card in anticipation of heading to San Francisco City Hall some time tomorrow to witness the event and just soak up all that joy and celebration and love. (And then post some pictures for you guys).

    Someone here – one of our straight allies – was asking about whether they should go to their local city or county office to watch the proceedings. Darn, now I can’t remember who that was. OK so ‘ll just tell everybody – GO THERE and witness this day and treat yourself to some happiness. And come back here and share it with everybody else.

  • 110. Anonygrl  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    There are currrently cases that RELATE but are not the same in Hawaii and Alaska.

  • 111. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm


    Don’t worry, They don’t have a leg to “stand” on!

    The proponents of prop 8 will be left “standing” all by themselves with nobody to bully!

    They may not under”stand” our love, but we don’t need their approval!

    They cannot “stand” the fact that they are loosing the battle!

    They will on ther otherhand learn to with”stand” our first class citizenship!

    Good riddens Prop H8!

  • 112. Jon  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    HOPE ALL GOES WELL IN CALI tomorrow … LOVE EVERY LAST one of ya !!! I will be watching the tele eastern time to see what gets handed down I pray for the right decision and now that he has been accused of being gay by NOM the blood suckers that they are he might just lift the stay to PISS them off !!!

  • 113. Jamie Wasson  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    This train has left the station. It is only a matter of time. I think Judge Walker wants to be on the side of history. Nice to see someone with a backbone for a change.

  • 114. Keith  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    With the gov and AG publicly decline to pursue an appeal, it very well could end here. That would kinda suck though because I believe his ruling would only apply to California. But, gays from other states need to sue their governments for inserting anti gay discrimination into their constitutions. They are clearly violating the14th amendment.

  • 115. Dpeck  |  August 11, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Hi Tim,

    No, that sign was Alan E’s sign, not mine. Alan, will you and your husband be able to head over to SF City Hall?

    If anyone else is there, I’ll be wearing my white Harvey Milk T-Shirt. Say hi!

    I’m not on Facebook but I’m going to finally have to cave in and sign up just so I can join in with all of you guys: )

  • 116. Sagesse  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Kathleen, Ann S, et al

    I realize it's early morning here (EDT), so you may not get to this right away, but:

    There are two bases on which intervenor status may be granted: by right, or permissive. On a thread last week someone raised the point that the precedents on D-Is having standing to appeal all relate to permissive intervenors, and that the status of intervenors with a right to intervene (proponents, in the prop 8 case) could be different. I have not seen this point referenced in any of the legal analyses since. Could it be that there's a determination to be made for intervenors by right that these precedents don't address?

  • 117. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    thanks Kathleen!!!

  • 118. Désiré  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    So will there be a gap between Walker lifting the stay and the 9th circuit putting it back because the NOMnuts cry to them (or failing that, to Kennedy)? Since the moment Walker rules they will be running off to appeal, even it turns out to be to appeal their lack of ability to appeal. So if Walker lifts the stay, will marriages really be allowed to resume or must people wait until the 9th circuit (or Kennedy) rules on this?

  • 119. Dave  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    Can someone answer the following questions.

    1. If they are denied standing by the 9th then they would be able to appeal the decision on standing to the supreme court?

    2. Since the Supreme Court is not in session then Justice Kennedy alone would decide if they have standing?

    3. If 1 and 2 are true and Kennedy does rule they have standing, could that be used to predict how he would rule when the actual case goes before the Supreme Court.

  • 120. Anonygrl  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Depends… Walker could give a limited extension to the stay to allow Kennedy to rule on it, or could end it immediately. If he lifts it immediately, the state could start issuing licenses on the spot.

  • 121. Dave in ME  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Mee too!

    Dave in Maine

  • 122. Sagesse  |  August 11, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    The interviewer in the article is Arisha, and the video is identified as being from the NOMTourTracker. Way to go, CC.

    I think it is fabulous that Barney Frank is drawing attention to what happened, and laying it on NOM. Between this and Larry Adams, they are not getting away with trying to distance themselves from the speakers and attendees at their rallies. From the interview, there was probably no way to identify or charge the person who punched Alice Hoenigman, but Arisha does say she saw it.

    This public rebuke from Frank is a great outcome. Even if he is biased because he is gay ;).

  • 123. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    It all depends. You want to wear a wedding dress, wear a wedding dress. You and to wear a tuxedo, wear a tuxedo. Jeans & Hawaiian print shirts are also acceptable.

  • 124. Jonathon  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    I'm curious about something. I know that Judge Walker denied Imperial County request to intervene. But, if memory serves, it was only because they didn't file their documents in a timely fashion. So, IF they had filed their documents in a timely fashion…would they have had a chance of legal standing (considering they are a county governmental body)? I bring this up, since the 9th CC will decide if they do have legal standing (without regards to document filings I would presume). So, maybe they might have a right to appeal? What are your thoughts?

  • 125. Andrew  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Well, I don't think it would be an indicator of his position for a couple of reasons. Let's go with the two scenarios involving Judge Kennedy:

    1. He states DI's have no standing to appeal. While this is great in that there is no possibility for the case to go to the federal level just to lose, it is also a bit of a blow to the movement. Although Judge Walker is indeed a Federal Judge, his ruling is not the supreme law of the land and only a decision that makes it to the Supreme Court can be sweeping in dissolving anti-SSM legislation. Then again, what we have right now is a victory which could help pave the road to ending orientation discrimination.

    2. Justice Kennedy decides DI's *do* have legal standing for appeal. This scenario, although on the surface appears as though he is granting proponents another shot at the case, could in fact be a strategic move. From what I have seen, this is a more than solid case with irrefutable evidence overpowering the ingrained beliefs of proponents. If Kennedy thinks this as well, his decision to allow for appeal would bring the issue to the 9th circuit where, theoretically, the ruling would be upheld. Knowing the proponents in this case, they will appeal again to the Supreme Court, which can in fact make a sweeping judgment, outlawing legislation against SSM. Therefore, although superficially appearing to support proponents, a decision by Justice Kennedy to allow for appeal could in fact be a way to bring this movement to a finish.

    Appeal Allowed:

    Pros: Would bring this to Supreme Court, which can make a sweeping judgment, ending this battle in our favor sooner. Such a judgment would then become permanent legal precedent in all states current and future.

    Cons: If the ruling is overturned, we lose yet another foothold and may not get this chance again. In addition, it could lead to a Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM in all 50 states. This is the worst case scenario.

    Appeal Disallowed:

    Pros: We have this judgment at the federal level, which can be used as significant leverage in future individual cases to slowly gather ground toward equality. It would stand as yet another victory. Though it is still not *the* victory we need, it is one of the largest yet.

    Cons: We may have a definite victory, but it only affects California and not any of the 44 (43?) other states in the nation. It also will not affect federal recognition, so the same problems which have been encountered in other states with federal marriage rights and protections would not go away until yet another case is decided. Even then, DOMA is still on the books until the Massachusetts case is decided by the Supreme Court.

    That's my $.02. Actually, I think that's more my $2.00

  • 126. Brandon Broehl-Phife  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    My husband (domestic partner just doesn't cut it for me, sorry) and I will be going ASAP. We're in San Francisco. Here's hoping!

  • 127. FreeATLast  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Best of luck, Keith, and (hopefully) congrats on the wedding!

  • 128. dtwirling  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    I'm from Fresno, too, but my wife and I were lucky enough to marry in October before Prop H8 passed. I can rec a great minister operating out of the bay area who does weddings.

  • 129. Shelly & Simie 4  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Hi all eagerly awaiting the decission here in Italy but we have a house in Charleroi P.A., We are hoping for my wife and I to come home soon!!! Since my wife is Italain and does not qualify for a work visa we are stuck here several months of the yr causing us to miss our kids b-days our grandchildren's b -days along with hollidays & other family obligations. If this ruling states that marriages can start on the spot does this mean I could sponsor my wife as my spouse or would we need to move to Cali? We were married in Canada would it be recognized or would we need to have another wedding? We hope some1 can answer these all important questions. There are over 1000 bi national couples that are forced to live in 2 different countries causeing work issues, financial hardship and can eventually cause the break up of a good marriage. We will be praying that Judge Walker makes the right decission today!!! Have a great day everyone!!!!

    Peace & Light


  • 130. Jonathon  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    You know, my partner and I were discussion something. Is it just us…or have the Prop 8 lawyers been awfully silent since the ruling against them? Maybe I've missed something being from the east coast. But, their silence has been deafening. What is everyone's thoughts on that?

  • 131. Sagesse  |  August 11, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    This WSJ article is subscription only, but it seems that John Yoo, renowned champion of civil rights, believes in putting marriage equality to a vote. Quelle surprise.

  • 132. Franck  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Hi Shelly & Simie

    I'm sorry, this ruling changes nothing for us bi-national couples. Even if there is no stay, even if marriages can happen again, you won't be able to sponsor a foreign spouse for immigration.

    That's actually the work of the Uniting American Families Act, and that one is still to be voted on.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1147 days, as of today.

  • 133. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Unlike the plaintiffs' attorneys, Kennedy, as a judge, has (or should have) no vested interest in seeing the case resolved in one direction or the other, but does have an interest in seeing it resolved definetively.

    I can't even begin to guess how that would play out, though.

    I don't think a constitutional amendment is a very large concern. The sentiment in this country is not THAT strongly anti-gay… polls and even state votes show it to be much closer to an even split than the 2/3 required to pass such an amendment. Not to mention that the political wrangling to even introduce such a measure can take YEARS and YEARS… and time is on our side, as every year the polls and public sentiment slide more and more in our favor.

    So I think that the con is merely (I know, it is not "mere" it is vital…) that it adds more time to the wait before marriage equality is finally acknowledged.

    My cent and a half.

  • 134. Andrew  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:08 am

    OT: I just saw this ad on Youtube about Mormonism. It is very subtle and I love what they did. Basically, they spent most of the ad having the subject talk about something she is passionate about which many others do: surfing. The only mention of Mormonism is a foot note at the end of the video in which she says "I'm a professional surfer and I'm a Mormon." From what I've read around the interweb, very few people understand Mormons are real people and not just the generalized, stereotypical polygamist with a hatred for homosexuals. There are certainly very normal people in the religion.

    The reason I bring it up is because it is a great way to provide a basis for empathy for a somewhat small group of individuals who have a fairly bad reputation. I think if there were similar ads about gay men and lesbians, the message that "We are people too and not just rampant sinners." would get out to people. It would allow them to see us in a way most never have before: as real people with real feelings and real, living ambitions.

    Just an idea.

  • 135. Shelly & Simie 4  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:13 am

    When do you think that would be ruled on? From what I understand this is a federal judge making this ruling I thought federal gov would have to also follow this ruling. How should we proceed? We want to go home to our family but we are forced to stay away or be appart and that is not in our heart so where do we start? When the gov farts we need to halt this bigotry and discrimination it should not have start. I wish i had a dart a poster and an old fart 2 target but alas i am without any ideas on how to start we need to get settled so we can start our life together instead of running back n forth ruinin our financial future!!! Any ideas?

    Thanx Hope u all like the lil poem lol

  • 136. Papa Foma  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Considering inflation, I believe that is about right! LOL

  • 137. Alan E.  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:18 am

    I posted a few days ago about Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) and their "Truth Academy." last weekend. Parts 2 and 3 of the series are up exposing what was going on inside closed doors. Please be sure to go send Hemant Mehta (the owner of the blog) a thanks on his site because he put up the money to get two spies in, even coordinating a religious reference for the two.

    Part 2:

    Part 3:

    Be ready to get upset because these people are saying some nasty things about LGBT people.

  • 138. MJFargo  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Best of luck Keith (I'm in Sonoma County)

  • 139. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Some perspective on how social conservatives are meddling with the composition of state supreme courts to further a one-man-one-woman marriage agenda. In New Jersey, from an editorial in the Star Ledger last Thursday

    Christie's move casts a shadow on the bench

  • 140. Anna Bryan  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Probably waiting for NOM to pay the legal bills from their sorry performance.

  • 141. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:26 am

    And in Iowa, where NOM is aggressively pushing for a marriage amendment this election

    Branstad won’t push to oust justices for gay marriage vote

  • 142. MS.Fp  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:29 am

    WE WILL!!! Hayward.

  • 143. Franck  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:33 am

    I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here – Judge Walker is a Federal Judge, but not a Supreme Court Judge. The federal government will only be forced to follow the verdict of a Supreme Court trial.

    I'm sorry for bad news, but for now, all you can do is ask your parents, family, friends and especially hometown to support the passage of UAFA.

    UAFA isn't a court case, it's a bill that needs to pass in front of Congress. If you wish to learn more, read here :

    Hold on, don't lose hope. We're many more than you think out there in the same situation you are — Felyx and Kevyn/Kirille, Shun, myself and so many others I haven't grown to know yet. Contact me or the guys at Out4Immigration if you want to talk more about the issue.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1147 days, as of today.

  • 144. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:41 am

    From the New York Review of Books, of all places. The author, David Cole is Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

    How Will Gay Marriage Fare in the Supreme Court?

  • 145. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:45 am

    When a judge SPANKS a lawyer as soundly as they were spanked, the lawyer tends to duck for a while.

    That is my guess.

  • 146. Kate  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:45 am

    Straight Grandmother — I can't even begin to imagine how wonderful it must be to have such a supportive person as you in one's family. I'm jealous! Will you adopt me/????

  • 147. MJFargo  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:47 am

    I did the same thing, Straight Grandmother, and I've got the song "Tomorrow" stuck in my head…when actually…it's TODAY! But the minutes are passing slowly. Still, after waiting for that ruling, this is a piece of cake.

  • 148. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Ann S read Walker's order. She reports that the untimely motion was not the reason Walker denied their request. It had more to do with the fact that they really don't have an interest here. The counties take their directions from the state wrt marriage. If the state says to issue marriage licenses, the counties are bound to do so. Maybe Ann S can chime in (I just woke–need coffee).

  • 149. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:51 am

    quelle surprise indeed. maybe he'd approve of torturing people to get the vote he wants?

  • 150. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:00 am

    @Caryn, I was speaking hypothetically about if there is no DOMA. In the absence of a law like that, the federal government generally would recognize marriages legal in any of the states.

  • 151. Mike K  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Andrew … I think you nailed it. That's my $0.02 …. so we're now up to $20.02 on this one :>)

  • 152. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:02 am

    @draNgNon, you're assuming we would win on appeal. That wouldn't be a sure thing.

  • 153. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Even if this case is upheld by the Supreme Court and the decision they make is as broad as Walker's, i.e., any denial of the right of g&l couples to marry violates the US Constitution, that would only mean that all states have to permit marriage. It would not settle the question of DOMA's denial of federal benefits.

    Clearly, such a ruling would mean DOMA would be doomed, but it wouldn't necessarily strike it down at the same time. IF we were to get a ruling as described above, then either the federal gov't could decide it's time to do away with DOMA w/out court action, or the court could strike it down in a case that directly challenges DOMA. Fortunately, just such a case is making its way through the court system now–the case in Mass where a federal district court judge said it's unconstitutional. That case has yet to be appealed.

  • 154. Mike K  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Hubby and I were thinking the same … they've been totally silent. Makes us wonder what's up?

  • 155. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:04 am

    Nothing wrong with having the legal wedding done right away and planning the party at your convenience.

  • 156. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Good luck to you and your partner, and everyone who hopes to marry during this window we hope to get!

  • 157. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:07 am

    @Judy, my brother-in-law the lawyer says the ceremony must be completed during the period when the stay is not in place. I might suggest having someone marry you right there at the clerk's office if possible, and have another ceremony and party later if you want.

  • 158. Shelly & Simie 4  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:10 am

    We are hoping the judge says his ruling @ 9am Cali time!!!! We cant wait!!! sittin on pins and niddles!!!! Hurry up Judge Walker we are all counting on you!!!! We need you to help us finally do the right thing!!! Please make it legal for same sex partners to sponsor their spouses!!! or when they marry in Cali that they can become citizens!!! We need to stay home with our families, friends, children, grandchildren, our work, charities, being able to support different organizations that help millions of families and individules live their life free!!!

  • 159. Tiffany in CA  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:13 am

    My domestic partner and I will be getting married in SF tomorrow *when* possible!!!!

  • 160. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Methinks it is entirely possible that Cooper and his firm will not be the ones taking the appeal forward. Protect Marriage and their backers lose nothing by changing horses at this point.

  • 161. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:16 am

    I cannot stand that man. I actually had a nightmare about him one night, that he was in my living room and I thought my husband had invited him over and for my husband's sake I had to be polite to him. I woke up so angry.

  • 162. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:19 am

    I really don't think they have a chance of getting that passed in Iowa. Iowans seem like a life-and-let-live sort of people, and overall just fine with having marriage equality.

  • 163. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:21 am

    Congratulations!!! May you have a long and happy married life together!

  • 164. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:22 am

    This is why I keep reminding everyone that a win here in District Court is a win worth holding onto. Success at appellate levels isn't assured at all, although I am optimistic that day will come, and before too long.

  • 165. Kate  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Y'all come on up to the Siskiyou County court house — no waiting!!!!!!!

  • 166. Shelly & Simie 4  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:23 am

    Congrates 2 all the lucky couples who can marry tomorrow if this is ruled in our favor!! Now please support the binational couples that would be legal if our marriage would be made federal so the gov would have to let us sponsor our spouses!!!

  • 167. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Wow. I usually only have nightmares like that about some members of my family. :)

  • 168. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:26 am

    @Ann S. That's my read from a distance too. However, my Pollyanna instincts surface at the drop of a hat, so I try not to be too hopeful.

    In Iowa, they run the risk of an anti-marriage equality slate being elected for reasons other than that particular issue. Most people aren't single issue voters.

  • 169. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:28 am

    In Judge Walker's order denying Imperial County's motion to intervene, he addressed both intervention by right and permissive intervention, and found no grounds for either.

    I haven't had my morning tea yet either, so I'm cutting and pasting what I wrote earlier:

    They missed the deadline for motions to intervene. (Walker agreed with them that this caused no prejudice.)

    They didn’t want to participate in the trial, just the appeal. (Hence: no prejudice due to late motion.)

    One of their arguments seems to be that the voters of their county voted for Prop 8 70% to 30%. (Sorry, your county does not get its own speshul marriage laws.)

    Another is that failure to appeal would result in “legal uncertainty and confusion”. (Uh, no. It would result in a final decision.)

    And in Walker’s ruling, he says that Imperial County is a mere subdivision of the state, has to do what the state decides as far as marriage, has no significant protectible interest, and if they suffer from uncertainty and confusion about their duties under state law, they can seek declaratory relief.

    Hope that helps.

  • 170. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:33 am

    It was horrible. I was trying to cut back on some meds per my doctor's suggestion, and I had three nights in a row of very poor sleep and vivid nightmares (the Yoo dream being one of them). You better believe the doctor heard about the Yoo dream.

  • 171. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Fingers crossed for Iowa, and everywhere!

  • 172. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:36 am

    I'm sure it was horrible, but it makes me laugh. Am I a bad person?

  • 173. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Fingers in the Silicon Valley are crossed for you (and everyone else).


  • 174. Shelly & Simie 4  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Well anything yet on his decission?

  • 175. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:38 am

    From Nate Silver at, very encouraging statistical data regarding the increasing trend toward acceptance of same-sex marriage in the United States.

    Read it and weep, NOMNOMs. You're through it's only a matter of time.

    (I'd kill for stats like this on acceptance of evolution…*grumble* 😉 )

  • 176. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Not 9am here yet.

  • 177. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:48 am

    (I’d kill for stats like this on acceptance of evolution…*grumble* 😉 )

    LOL. I'd like to see stats like that on just a basic understanding of science!

  • 178. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Nate Silver is so solid and thorough when he looks at polling data. He doesn't indulge in the sloppy/slippery reasoning others do.

    Someone once said that there is generally a 3 or 4% gap between polling and actual voting numbers. In other words, to fairly certain of a win in CA in 2012, you would want a 4% spread in the polls going in to be confident of a win.

  • 179. Jonathon  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:03 am

    @ Ann and Kathleen. Thank you to you both for the clarification. I apologize that I missed this, and sorry I asked the question before you could get your 1st cup of coffee. I'd treat you, both, to a Starbuck's coffee if I could. :)

  • 180. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Ditto! …Would it be poor form to mention the mental image conjured by the first part of your sentence, Fiona? (Yeah, despite the fact that there's no "e" on the end of "Silicon." If it is objectionable, I apologize in advance. Please blame it on the excitement over waiting for today's news. :)

  • 181. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:08 am

    When the decision came out, the usual online sources (court, pacer, etc) weren't the first to have it. Hopefully, we have people scouring the web for breaking news who will report back here.

    I'm watching the e-filing notification list and I'm sure there are plenty of people stalking the Court's website.

  • 182. CharlesB  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:14 am


  • 183. CharlesB  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Now with boxes checked…

  • 184. Tim & Michael Qu  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Greetings from Wisconsin….but legally married (5/28/10) in Dubuque, Iowa.

    We are so excited for you guys in Ca!!!!!!! Maybe this will finally be settled by the Supreme Court and our marriage and marriages of 1000's will be recognized by every state and my husband can process my will as it should be.

    May sound strange but am waiting for a kidney transplant and may not be able to see that in my lifetime.

    Our love to all of you at P8TT for fighting for OUR rights as well as your own.


  • 185. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Tim (Michael?), thank you so much for posting! I'm so sorry to hear of your medical status. I hope you find your donor soon and that whatever happens, your husband's rights are recognized.

  • 186. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Thank you for that information, Errin. :)

  • 187. Tim & Michael Qu  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Thanks Kathleen just wanted to clarifiy my strange reasoning…lol……but I'm still sitting here and hitting F5 and refresh often!!


  • 188. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:25 am

    What does the fabric of society being torn asunder sound like, anyway?

  • 189. Alan E.  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Silicon is the mineral used in computers and such. Silicone is the rubbery stuff used in a lot of cooking items today.

  • 190. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Have you ever heard tens of thousands of people cheering while angels sing and every bell in the world rings? Something like that, but in the chiffon range.

  • 191. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Awesome! I hope to hear it soon. 😀

  • 192. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:36 am

    And my brother and BIL are there at SF City Hall, too:

  • 193. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:56 am

    This is like pin the tail on the donkey. Which Topic will the announcement show up in first? I keep flipping through these topics scanning as quick as possible.

    Kathleen do you remember who had the announcement of the verdict first last time. Was it New York Magazine or something? Hey if they were first to know last time maybe they will be first to know this time.

  • 194. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:59 am

    I got it from:

  • 195. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Thanks I opened a window for that website as well.

  • 196. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:05 am

    NOT the stay decision – it's not out yet. I was answering SG's question about where we got the ruling in the case on Aug 4.

  • 197. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:08 am

    It is about 10am there ont he left coast right?

  • 198. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Yes, 10:09.

  • 199. Rebecca  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I can't handle the suspense!

  • 200. Hanou  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:33 am

    "People my age
    Have started looking gross
    Maybe not in Colorado
    Or up the Silicone Coast"

    -John Gorka

  • 201. Shannon  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:35 am

    I'm sitting here crossing my fingers in Sacramento and waiting with everyone!! Is anyone actually at City Hall in Sacramento right now? I'm trying to determine if I should try to make it over there on the lightrail… having a car would make it so much easier! GOOD LUCK TODAY!!! My wife and I were married in SF in October '08.

  • 202. Shannon  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Me either, Rebecca!!

  • 203. Shannon  |  August 12, 2010 at 3:47 am

    For those of you in Sacramento, I just saw it posted somewhere that people should meet at the Capitol at 3 p.m. if the stay is lifted!

  • 204. LO  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:07 am

    "Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."– Coretta Scott King

  • 205. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:10 am


  • 206. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:15 am

    I can't either!

  • 207. Angel  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Want 2 protect marriage? No cheating, getting hitched on game shows, married for anything but luv, and 3+ marriages.

  • 208. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Let's see how this video embedding stuff works:

    [youtube =]

  • 209. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:33 am

    It appears to not have :(

  • 210. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Grr… it seems the answer is "not very well". Let's see if this works any better:

  • 211. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Oh, well. I was trying to embed this video, which I think summarizes the situation re: public acceptance of marriage equality pretty well…

  • 212. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:37 am


    Twenty minutes or less!!!!

  • 213. Rick  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Walker must be waiting until high noon (3 here in the East). Rather incredible that if the stay is appealed to SCOTUS, Justice Kennedy would make the call. What high drama–this is movie script that Hollywood doesn't need to embellish.

  • 214. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Ah! A classic, and well put!

  • 215. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Already subscribed! Argggg I'm going crazy! Good luck to you all. Much Love…

  • 216. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:40 am

    You said it, Kathleen!

  • 217. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I got nothing to say except; Good God, man!

  • 218. Angel  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:53 am

    "A Moral Wrong Cannot be a Civil Right"… Guess there goes smoking, alcohol, divorce, etc.. Morals are no fun.

    72% of people via Fox News poll support gay marriage.

  • 219. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I dont think prop 8 would pass today!
    We have done a lot of good work since it was passed!

  • 220. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Well what a surprise to wake up to.
    I bet just after I clocked off last night at 3am this was probably posted. Oh well it is the same thing that happened last time for the verdict. Right after I posted that I was done for the night there was the announcement of the verdict. In a way it is okay because at least I get a good ngihts sleep.

    9am California time is 6pm my time. Along with all the rest of you, I’ll be hitting F5 F5 F5 and refreshing, refreshing, refreshing.

    There is one guy on here that says he has a source at the Court House and I remember at least twice he came on here maybe 10 to 15 minutes before official word was out and he announced it. Whow knows if this is true or not but I am tending to beleive this guy.

  • 221. Sagian  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I see the crowd jumping up and down on the CNN Live feed! Must be good news!

  • 222. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Same on channel two in SF

  • 223. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:28 am

    KPIX 5 says the stay has been lifted and marriages can resume. But they are awaiting official word.

  • 224. David  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Stay denied and permament injunction entered: "Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution."

  • 225. David  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:52 am

    "Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner."

  • 226. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:57 am

    The stay has been lifted but no marriages will be performed until the 18th to give the proponents time to appeal to the 9th circuit , so it can decide on the stay.
    All counties in Ca must be ready to issue licences by then or they will be in violation of his ruling to end enforcement of prop 8. So no marriages until next week. If the nineth curcuit upholds Walkers decision. I think I have it right.

  • 227. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:40 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 228. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:46 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 229. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:48 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 230. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:00 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 231. &ra&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:00 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 232. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:13 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 233. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:13 am

    […] news! Judge Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 234. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:24 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 235. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:42 am

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

  • 236. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Somehow, while waiting for the ruling today, I read the last of the reports on the Truth Academy last weekend, and what impressed me most was the maturity and astuteness of the commentary by the young 'spies' who attended the sessions.

    Now that we all have nothing better to do…. folks might want to check it out.

  • 237. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I see a sign on the CNN feed: “California where votes -why did he write ‘against your civil rights’ so small? – don’t count” 😉

  • 238. Same-Sex Couples MAY Be A&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    […] Vaughn Walker will be ruling TODAY on whether or not same-sex couples will be able to get married in California immediately […]

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