Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Judge Walker to lift stay on Prop 8 ruling on August 18th

Background Trial analysis


Share on Facebook

[tweetmeme source=”CourageCampaign”]

By Adam Bink

Just now, Judge Walker issued his ruling on the Motion to Stay. The ruling will be stayed until Wednesday, August 18th at 5 PM PST, after which time, same-sex couples can be married again in the state of California (unless another stay is issued by a higher court).

Docket Text:

ORDER by Judge Walker denying [705] Motion to Stay. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2010)

Another huge win following his decision that Prop 8 violates Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

In response, Courage Campaign issued the following release:

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES MAY RESUME IN CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 18
Jacobs: “Today, equality under the law has been restored for millions of loving families across California.

Moments ago, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker  ruled that the temporary stay of his ruling that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional  will be lifted, effective August 18th.  Today’s order means that  in less than one week,  gay and lesbian couples can once again get married in California.

More than 18,000 California gay and lesbian couples were married prior to the passage of Proposition 8 in November of 2008.

In response to today’s ruling, Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling means that in less than one week, equality under the law will be restored for millions of loving families across California.  Lifting the stay is ultimately consistent with both legal precedent and the findings in this case.

Specifically, that every American  has a civil right to marriage, and that by depriving millions of families this right, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Judge Walker’s ruling affirms that the purpose of our judicial system is to protect our constitutional rights, not to take away those rights.

All Americans agree that weddings matter and marriage is the foundation of strong families.  Families and the institution of marriage itself can only be strengthened by the inclusion of more committed couples bound by unconditional love and enduring partnership.”

Developing…

UPDATE (12:57 PST): The ruling can be found here. I’ll be posting excerpts. Notable:

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.

UPDATE (12:59 PST): Some of you may have seen a post from Brian just up- we’re going to save that analysis for a bit later. You can continue using this thread to comment.

UPDATE (1:08 PST): A number of questions have come in on whether couples will be able to marry. The answer is likely, but not definite. Meaning, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has some breathing room to issue a stay- and that ruling may also be appealed to the  Supreme Court. At the 9th Circuit, a 3-judge panel would decide on the Motion to Stay- usually without a hearing, but a hearing is possible. If a Motion to Stay isn’t granted at a higher level, then yes, couples may marry come 5 PM on August 18th. As for a timeline, it could be as short as days to have a 9th Circuit decision.

UPDATE ON THIS: Justice Kennedy handles appeals for the 9th Circuit, and can rule on it himself, or refer it to the full Court.

UPDATE (1:17 PST): Another excerpt- and on this one, Walker is particularly right. The proponents’ claim is ridiclous.

Proponents claim that plaintiffs’ desire to marry is not “urgent,” because they chose not to marry in 2008. Doc #705 at 11. Whether plaintiffs choose to exercise their right to marry now is a matter that plaintiffs, and plaintiffs alone, have the right to decide. Because a stay would force California to continue to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California, the third factor weighs heavily against proponents’ motion.

UPDATE (1:21 PST): Walker hints at his thoughts on the standing of Prop 8 proponents to appeal:

The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.”  Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction….

If [] no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67. Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal. Diamond, 476 US at 68 (holding that “Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether permissive or as of right, does not confer standing to keep the case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal”); see also Associated Builders & Contractors v Perry, 16 F3d 688, 690 (6th Cir 1994) (“The standing requirement * * * may bar an appeal even though a litigant had standing before the district court.”). The Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67.

UPDATE (1:25 PST): Over at Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen- an excellent commentator on SCOTUS and election law- notes the makeup of this month’s 9th Circuit 3-judge panel, which is assigned to rule on the appeal of the Motion to Stay, may not bode well for our opponents (this post was from August 3rd, so disregard the language referring to “tomorrow”).

How confident are Prop. 8 supporters that they are going to lose tomorrow, when Judge Walker issues his decision on constitutional issues? They’ve already filed papers asking for him to stay his ruling pending appeal (which is a prerequisite to seeking a stay in the Ninth Circuit). That stay request will be heard by a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit, which is made up this month of Judges Leavy, Hawkins, and Thomas. Not a great draw for Prop. 8 supporters. A stay request could go potentially to Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court within days.

Thomas was short-listed by Obama for a SCOTUS nomination.

UPDATE (1:56 PST): From @nomtweets:

Brian: Walker has taken his activism to a next level, refusing to stay decision. This will backfire at SCOTUS. Will be overturned.

229 Comments

  • 1. JonT  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:52 am

    I thought the order requesting a new thread had been stayed? :) Sorry.

  • 2. Ronnie  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Emails…NOM NOM NOM NOM….<3…Ronnie

  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Sub

  • 4. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:55 am

    sub-sub

  • 5. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Yay!
    By August 19 California will have same-sex marriage again!

    For me and Felyx August 19 is a very special day — our 6-months anniversary (we've met right here, on P8TT, on February 19)!

    ♂K♥F♂

  • 6. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Oh, just let me have it.

  • 7. Alan E.  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Subscribing!

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:59 am

    subbing

  • 9. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:59 am

    What happened to the other new thread?

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:01 am

    The court first considers whether proponents have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal. The mere possibility of success will not suffice; proponents must show that success is likely. Winter, 129 SCt at 375. Proponents assert they are likely to succeed “[f]or all the reasons explained throughout this litigation.” Doc #705 at 7. Because proponents filed their motion to stay before the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, proponents do not in their memorandum discuss the likelihood of their success with reference to the court’s conclusions. Neither do proponents discuss whether the court of appeals would have jurisdiction to reach the merits of their appeal absent an appeal by a state defendant.

  • 11. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:01 am

    I think that possibly Judge Walker hated staying his Order but considered it the most prudent thing to do. Give NO AMMUNITION to the opposition!

  • 12. JonT  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I guess they figured two threads on the same topic was a bit much (and I agree :)

  • 13. cytyger  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I have a question for the legal people here. If the plaintiffs get married on the 18th since the stay has been lifted, how would that affect their standing on any appeals should this case continue to go forward?

  • 14. Matt  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Congrats to ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ , I hope that turns out to be a special day for you.

    I've read over the ruling, and it almost seems like the judge tries to give both sides what they want. In the brief, the proponents had asked for a "temporary stay" as an alternative if their motion is denied in order for the higher appeals court to consider the matter. Basically, they got that. Reading into the language of the actual order, though, it's clear that Walker, at least, doesn't think the proponents have a leg to stand on and seems to find their position of standing questionable at best, but I guess it'll be up to the 9th circuit to sort out all those issues.

  • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:03 am

    They posted this:

    UPDATE (12:59 PST): Some of you may have seen a post from Brian just up- we’re going to save that analysis for a bit later. You can continue using this thread to comment.

  • 16. Freddy  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:03 am

    At the same time out of respect for the 9th, he didn't want to cram this down their throat and put them in a bind.

  • 17. JonT  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:03 am

    A quote (or two)

    'Proponents had a full opportunity to provide
    evidence in support of their position and nevertheless failed to present even one credible witness on the government interest in Proposition 8.
    '

    And of course, my favorite so far: 'Proponents
    have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.

    Haha!

  • 18. Fred  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:04 am

    "Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction."

    Exactly.

  • 19. Freddy  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:04 am

    LLB, that one was yesterdays news.

  • 20. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:05 am

    While certainly unpopular with us, it was undeniably the prudent move for him to make in this situation. He explained his resoning clearly, and gave the 9th Circuit time to address the issue. All very tactfully done. Now the 9th needs to decide how THEY are going to come down on this issue, including that they can and should rule on standing, I think.

  • 21. Marcus  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Yeah. And to think that Brian Brown could have solved the entire problem just by proposing to me first…

  • 22. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:05 am

    That's pretty much where my husband went (Captain America, for those who may have seen him posting here) when we talked. He sees this as one more example of Judge Walker making sure that every procedural *and* factual *and* legal T is crossed and I dotted.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 23. Sheryl Carver  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Hope this doesn't post twice, as the first attempt seemed to hang up.

    And the cliff-hanging continues. Sigh.

    I know this is how the law works, & I'm glad that judges take time to fully evaluate evidence & applicable law.

    But as another poster commented, these partial & temporary & reversible victories are maddening.

    But a whole lot better than defeats of any kind.

  • 24. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

    UPDATE: Final JUDGMENT entered: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35800665/Doc-728

    As reported, this judgment is stayed until August 18 (per stay order, Doc 727). The significance of this judgment is that now the 30 days begins ticking for parties to file an appeal of the decision.

    As Brian explains above, there will be a lot of preliminary activity having to do with attempts to extend the stay beyond Aug 18.

  • 25. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

    AWIN, but a deferred win. I can't believe next week we will repeat this same exercize Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    It's 10pm my time adn I was up late last night so I'm going to bed. I read the Decision so I can rest easy.

  • 26. cc  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Yippee, just got word, but a little bummed too. The radio station I was listening to made it out like we could wed today if we so choosed. I immediately jumped on line to check out the full story from my prop 8 trail trackers. Thanks for clearing things up!

  • 27. Heath  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

    *sigh*

    I understand Judge Walker's reasoning. But it's still disheartening: "Stay at the back of the bus a little longer, people."

    As if we could *ever* win a temporary injunction against opposite-sex marriage.

  • 28. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

    I'm confused. What happened to the other post?

  • 29. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:08 am

    My guess (and I am not a legal person) is that since the ruling could still be overturned and make that marriage possibly invalid, the plaintiffs, whether they marry immediately or not, still have a specific interest in the case and would continue on.

  • 30. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Sounds like right thing to do… But, curses! 😛

  • 31. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Okay, just read the explanation above. I thought that analysis was very useful. I'd like to see it go up asap. :(

  • 32. Rick  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:09 am

    So what are the odds the 9th Circuit Court extends the stay?

  • 33. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Hey now, watch it… Louis will get jealous!

  • 34. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Kathleen, they are going to put that back up later for commentary…

    UPDATE (12:59 PST): Some of you may have seen a post from Brian just up- we’re going to save that analysis for a bit later. You can continue using this thread to comment.

  • 35. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Hi, Louis!

    Bless your heart. ;->

  • 36. Bolt  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Good afternoon everyone, and thanks for the post. This is excellent news.

  • 37. Thomas  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Here's what I'm wondering. Let's say the court determines that the "Protect Marriage" people do not have standing and that's the end of it. And say, God forbid, Meg Whitman or Kamala Harris are elected into office in Nov. Can they then appeal the decision on behalf of the state?

  • 38. Susan R Barnes  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:10 am

    'Even if proponents were to have standing to pursue their appeal, as the court recently explained at length the minimal evidence proponents presented at trial does not support their defense of Proposition 8.'

    'Proponets had a full opportunity to provide evidence in support of their position and nevertheless failed to present even one credible witness on the goverment interest in Proposition 8.'

    I love it!

  • 39. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Well, as Brian HAD explained above, this is just a cut and paste of a comment I put on the post that disappeared.

  • 40. Bolt  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:11 am

    According to Walker's ruling, very slim to none. The proponents are not state officials; therefore, they don't have the legal standing to proceed with appeals.

  • 41. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:12 am

    I think (IANAL) that they have to decide whether the D-Is have any standing to appeal before they could do that, since if there is no standing to appeal, there is no reason to continue the stay … could some lawyerly type confirm/deny that?

    Love,
    Fina

  • 42. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:12 am

    We don't have ex post facto law in this country. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 43. JonT  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Kathleen, the order creating that post was stayed pending a ruling by the 11th Dimensional Court of Appeals.

  • 44. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:13 am

    PS – Kamala Harris has stated she would not defend Prop 8. It's the other dude who said he would do so if necessary.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 45. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:13 am

    The stay was denied. We will have a new thread on August 18, unless the Ninth Circuit rules that we have to stay in this thread.

  • 46. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Hadn't thought of it from that angle. Nice. Couldn't that still be risky in that the case COULD be considered moot if the plaintiffs marry?

  • 47. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:15 am

    …Judge Mxyzptlk, presiding, I presume.

  • 48. Thomas  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Thanks Fiona. Yeah sorry got my candidates mixed up. Harris is running as Democrat. It's Steve Cooley running under GOP that said he would.

  • 49. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:17 am

    but then – oh hell, stream of thought – if the case is moot wouldn't it be drooped – thus overriding Walker's ruling and make Prop8 the law of the land THUS invalidating the marriages? And I thought NOM's heads were spinning!! :)

  • 50. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:18 am

    It might actually be better for them to marry to add further proof as to its importance.

    I should never try to think AND drink.

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:19 am

    UPDATE (1:08 PST): A number of questions have come in on whether couples will be able to marry. The answer is likely, but not definite. Meaning, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has some breathing room to issue a stay- and that ruling may also be appealed to the Supreme Court. At the 9th Circuit, a 3-judge panel would decide on the Motion to Stay- usually without a hearing, but a hearing is possible. If a Motion to Stay isn’t granted at a higher level, then yes, couples may marry come 5 PM on August 18th. As for a timeline, it could be as short as days to have a 9th Circuit decision.

    But the 9th still have to have an appeal before any of that happens right? And they haven't received an appeal as of now?

  • 52. Mandy  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:19 am

    stays on judgments and orders are the norm court. I know it seems heartbreaking hoping that everyone could marry right away but it really isn't a setback as much as it feels like it is. It really goes to show that this is a legitimate ruling that should be upheld.

    I am very curious to see what will happen in terms of the standing issue. The proponents of prop 8 have a limited amount of time to file an appeal. If the intervenors do not have standing to appeal the ruling and that is ruled upon by the 9th circuit prior to the november elections I wonder if that ends the appeal.

    As a californian we really need to think about this election and whitman vs. brown. If whitman wins then she might appeal the ruling. If Brown wins then I doubt he will unless somehow forced too. as much as I want Walker's ruling to be appealed because it is an amazing ruling and would be a strong factual basis for the right to ssm, as a californian I am torn. I would love to have ssm everywhere and this would be a great case to appeal. On the other hand I don't want my taxes going to support a prop I don't believe in. Plus this state is bankrupt. I am also worried that we could lose and I worry about risking this loss.

    Ugh why is this even an issue. SSM should not even be an issue it should be open to everyone

  • 53. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:21 am

    I think that's right, LLB. But we know that proponents will appeal to the 9th Circuit, who will have to decide a) whether the proponents have standing to appeal, and b) whether their appeal merits a further stay.

  • 54. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:22 am

    FWIW, Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, who follows the Supreme Court and constitutional matters, and who, as a layperson I usually find pretty astute, just made an offhand comment that the question of standing is the kind of 'procedural issue' that can be gotten around if it is considered important that this decision get appellate review.

    Hmmmm.

  • 55. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Okay. I know this is hard to deal with, but after almost two years, 6 more days is not really that long.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:22 am

    AFAIK, the 9th Circuit hasn't yet received a request for a stay. But I'm sure it will come in very, very soon.

  • 57. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:24 am

    The Clock-Ticking aspect is extremely important!! Good Call (of course). :)

  • 58. Summerwine  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:26 am

    It's disappointing, but the last thing Judge Walker wants to do is rub the 9th Circuit the wrong way.

    Besides, at least this shows that Judge Walker is giving the Prop 8 proponents a chance to prove their "case" and his respect for the 9th. Of course, the Prop 8 proponents will probably spin the news like they always do.

  • 59. Felyx  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:26 am

    I hope that by our first anniversary we will have the ability to be together… I am watching closely to UAFA which still has a chance and of course I am eagerly awaiting to see what happens with the DOMA case in MA. I will move to MA if I have to!!!

    Celebrating life and love!!!

    Felyx 4 Kevyn

  • 60. Joseph  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:27 am

    I don't know what some people are upset about regarding the delay until the 18th. There's finding a dress/tux, flowers, catering, getting hair done, sending out invitations, trying to get on that Bridezilla tv show… August 18th really isn't even enough time to get a wedding together! :-) The longer the delay, the longer people have to shop for wedding gifts for you…. plus you're going to need time to try to get those Ace Of Cakes folks to make a wedding cake for you that looks like Judge Vaughn Walker…. lots of coconut for the beard… mmmm……

  • 61. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:27 am

    @Thomas,

    But isn't that where the 30 days to appeal comes in? The election will not have happened in 30 days. Don't know what happens if this gets dragged out to decide the stay, or standing….

  • 62. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:27 am

    I think pulling that post until later was a good idea so we wouldn't have to jump around.

    "Stay on target. Stay on target."

  • 63. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I guess this also means heterosexual couples have ONLY 1 WEEK to have sex…they have to stop on Aug. 18!

  • 64. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I can't see it!

  • 65. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:31 am

    No, I think that the NOM argument is that we can still legally have sex, but God won't like it any more.

  • 66. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Yes, and the stay allows them time to plan their End Of The World parties too.

  • 67. Philip  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:31 am

    If the proponents of Prop 8 are smart (haha) then they should not appeal to the supremes or risk losing in all 50 states and not just California.

  • 68. adambink  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Correct.

  • 69. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:32 am

    They might just be smart…But it doesn't show through all the obsessiveness.

  • 70. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:33 am

    And I think I just heard the sound of three heads exploding inside a bus somewhere between Chareston WV and Harrisburg PA. Oh, if only!

  • 71. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Well… suffice it to say they will be compelled to push and push until they are left wandering, in tatters, through the desert, drooling and mumbling amongst themselves. Like the scorpion in the story from The Crying Game…it's in their "nay-tcha."

  • 72. Wolfinlv  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:37 am

    We really need to stop using the term Same Sex Marriage. As Judge Walker stated we aren't asking for a "new right" but the right that everyone else has MARRIAGE. We want marriage not Same Sex Marriage. We want access to the marriage laws and rights we don't want new ones written that say "same sex marriage" For lack of a better way to put it we want the sex of the people asking for the marriage to not be an issue.

  • 73. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:37 am

    To me, as a non-Californian (Georgia), the best case would be that an Appeal goes forward BUT a Stay is not granted. I can't imagine a better record/case for SCOTUS with a better team (O & B) arguing it.

  • 74. Heather Sheridan  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Has anyone considered that the Proponents have been spending their time since the first ruling to try and find a State Official to Appeal the Decision? That may be why they have been silent for the most part.

  • 75. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:39 am

    What state official (besides the Governor and Atty. General, who've already declined to appeal) would have standing to appeal?

  • 76. Johan de Vries  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I think you might like the term "gender neutral" marriage? It's a bit clinical, but it covers the definition.

  • 77. JonT  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Hmm, good point. What should we wear for the coming 'Extinction of the Human Race' party?

    Choices, choices…

  • 78. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:43 am

    This. ^^

    Imperial County filed their request to be D-Is after the deadline, which is why they were denied.

    Thus, no state official has standing to appeal — because there are no state entities who have defended Prop 8.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 79. JefferyK  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Here's a complete list of defendants:

    ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
    official capacity as Governor of
    California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
    his official capacity as Attorney
    General of California; MARK B
    HORTON, in his official capacity
    as Director of the California
    Department of Public Health and
    State Registrar of Vital
    Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her
    official capacity as Deputy
    Director of Health Information &
    Strategic Planning for the
    California Department of Public
    Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
    official capacity as Clerk-
    Recorder of the County of
    Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his
    official capacity as Registrar-
    Recorder/County Clerk for the
    County of Los Angeles,

    and here's a complete list of the plaintiff-intervenors:

    DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
    KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING
    WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
    JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
    YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
    RENEWAL, as official proponents
    of Proposition 8,

  • 80. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Do you know what caused the French Revolution? Things were pretty sucky for the peasants, and had been forever, so the peasants were sort of set with their lot.

    Then, things started to get better for them. And suddenly, the peasants realized "OOOh… things CAN get better? Well in THAT case, we want MORE!!!" Pretty soon, heads were, literally, rolling.

    This is an enormously drastic over simplification. All I really mean to say is…"TO THE BARRICADES!"… NO… wait… that's not it… ummm…

    Oh, yeah… it is REALLY hard to wait those last few minutes. Especially when you can FINALLY see the prize. REALLY hard.

    :)

  • 81. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Exactly. There is a time period in which a judgment must be appealed. Miss that window and you can't appeal. Final judgment has been entered and the clock starts ticking now.

  • 82. JefferyK  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:51 am

    What I really hate are gay advocacy organizations like the HRC using the tagline "I Do!" in their marriage equality campaigns. The fight for marriage equality is the fight for legal marriage. You don't say "I do!" at the courthouse — there are no vows. Using that phrase confuses legal marriage with church solemnizing ceremonies, and gay people have had access to those for decades. I believe that the failure of gay advocacy organization to stem the tide of anti-gay-marriage state laws resides in these organization's failure to clearly articulate that access to church ceremonies has nothing to do with this fight.

  • 83. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Did Judge Walker make a joke?

    "Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

  • 84. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:52 am

    I agree. It would be nice if MSM would use "marriage equality" – not going to happen, though.

  • 85. bb  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Yes, that was a sarcastic joke. And I might add, a very funny one.

  • 86. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:53 am

    None of the named defendents were interested, and the point is that the plaintiff intervenors don't have standing.

    That doesn't leave a whole lot of options. Uness they can somehow round up GOD and get her to shine her shoes, put on her Sunday go to meeting dress and come testify in person, they are sort of up the proverbial underachieving water course without much by way of unpowered small craft propulsion gear. And the truth is that perhaps, based on Walker's ruling, God might not be classified as either a viable intervenor or even an expert witness!

  • 87. Brandon Broehl-Phife  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:54 am

    OK how about this scenario that played out in my head. (Hope you can follow along!)

    9th circuit agrees with Judge Walker and this is on its way over to SCOTUS. The year is now 2012 and a CA marriage amendment to allow gay marriage in the state constitution is placed on the ballot. *IF* that amendment were to pass, "prop 8" would become moot and SCOTUS wouldn't need to weigh in on this issue. So could be possibly see the right wing nuts voting for gay marriage to stop it from being weighed in on by SCOTUS? (Assuming Kennedy is leaning in our favor during this)

    BTW, 8/18 date set with my hubby (Hopefully SF City Hall will extended their hours past 5pm). Here's hoping the 9th circuit does not stay this after all :)

  • 88. JefferyK  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:55 am

    I laughed when I read that! The proponents just didn't get that they had to demonstrate that THEY were harmed. I can't figure out if their lawyers were just really bad or if they were just really stupid or both.

  • 89. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:56 am

    If (please, no) Whitman or Cooley wins, they won't be sworn in until January. Schwarzenegger's term doesn't end until Jan. 3, 2011. I don't know the odds that the ruling would be final by then.

    I think it will be a huge win for us if the proponents are found to have no standing. I know there is a lot of sentiment here for the case to move to the appellate levels, but I think it would fantastic for the case to end with this win.

    The 9th Circuit will have to decide the stay and standing issues. If they do that before any new governor or AG is sworn in, we're golden (so to speak).

  • 90. Anonygrl  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Yes. Rather a brilliant joke.

  • 91. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:57 am

    I think that it does go to the question of public policy, as it was addressed by Judge Walker, but it of course cannot go to prove the DI's (proponents) harm, which they tried to say it did.

  • 92. adambink  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Several updates posted above, folks.

  • 93. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 6:58 am

    They HAD to have had that ready to go, don't you think? But this time they're more polite and waited for the actual ruling.

    Also, it helps to read the ruling you're appealing.

    Ha!

  • 94. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:00 am

    My husband's gonna be SO disappointed. Me, too!

  • 95. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Do you hear the people sing? :)

  • 96. Mandy  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Oh and I only read the order on the motion to stay not the motions, did the pro 8 people give any fact or law in their motion to stay. The order really seemed to say you didn't give me any law and you didn't wait for my ruling nor did you even respond to my ruling.

  • 97. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Cue Les Miserables music.

  • 98. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Someone needs to make a new tin foil hat for Brian Brown…he's going nuts.

  • 99. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:04 am

    @JefferyK, I'm not sure I agree. Laws of some states that I've seen do require that the parties exchange vows before an officiant. I think even if people get married at the courthouse they might say "I do". People associate that phrase with marriage right away, also — a three-letter tagline that gets a message across is pretty good, I think.

  • 100. rf  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:04 am

    As a general rule, the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants.

  • 101. Christian  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:06 am

    I find it interesting how headlines are being written regarding this ruling. The CC has their press release that says "Federal Judge Rules Same-Sex Marriages May Resume in California". The LA Times and other newspapers have the headline "Judge keeps California gay marriage ruling on hold". To me it is interesting how a single ruling is parsed into a single sentence headline.

    In other comments, I agree with those who suggest stop referring to us wanting "same sex marriage". I simply want "marriage" (without the quotes preferably). A marriage that is recognized by the government to give me and my future husband the protections and guarantees that comes with it. Thanks to the CC for all they do with their blogs and advocacy; now lets call marriage what it is.

  • 102. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:07 am

    @Brandon, a word to the wise — in 2008 when marriages began to be allowed only one couple got married the evening it first became possible, and that was Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Mayor Newsom married them.

    My advice would be to get in line early on the 19th.

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

    I love this bit:

    "Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

  • 104. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:12 am

    I laughed out loud when I read that bit. I think it should be added to the original post!

  • 105. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:14 am

    "The blood of the martyrs will water the medals of France …"

    I love that show. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 106. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Psst, Fiona, it's "meadows" of France.

    Love that show, too.

  • 107. bb  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Jeffery, when I got married to my husband, we said "I do". It's civil marriage. The clerk asks you a question and you reply "I do". You still have all the requirements of marriage, the verbiage is the same, it just doesn't have all that religious stuff.

  • 108. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Egad … *meadows* of France. Don't ask where my head was when I typed that.

    For those who do not know the entire piece, here are the lyrics to "Do You Hear The People Sing," from Les Miserables:

    Enjolras
    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing a song of angry men?
    It is the music of a people
    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes!

    Combeferre
    Will you join in our crusade?
    Who will be strong and stand with me?
    Somewhere beyond the barricade
    Is there a world you long to see?

    Courfeyrac
    Then join in the fight
    That will give you the right to be free!!

    All
    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing a song of angry men?
    It is the music of a people
    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes!

    Feuilly
    Will you give all you can give
    So that our banner may advance
    Some will fall and some will live
    Will you stand up and take your chance?
    The blood of the martyrs
    Will water the meadows of France!

    All
    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing a song of angry men?
    It is the music of a people
    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes

  • 109. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Ann S:

    I know it's meadows … I plead fewer than 5 hours of sleep after an insane business trip and trying to do too many things at once.

    Love,
    Fionazzzzzzzzz

  • 110. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:16 am

    OT – People have been asking about the status of the DOMA cases in federal District Court in Mass…. finally found a moment to check on them.

    The final judgments in both cases were entered today. Per the FAQ Glad put out about one of the cases (Gill), the judgments are automatically stayed for fourteen days, "within which time we expect the Department of Justice to ask that the stay be extended until any appeals are completed. In these types of cases, these requests are usually granted."

    I THINK (not sure) that, because the defendants are the federal government, the government will have 60 days to appeal. Also, I'm not sure why a 14 day automatic stay applies here, where it didn't in Perry. It might also be because the defendants are the feds.

    The formal entrance of judgment today starts the clock ticking on those two deadlines.

  • 111. David from Sandy Uta  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:17 am

    In my never-humble opinion, NOM is like the KKK for religionist bigots. My evil twin wants Maggie and her minions to have an apoplectic stroke.

    I want a picture of her face when Appeals rules that Proponents do hot have standing (assuming that they will—ROFLMAO)

    David

  • 112. fiona64  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Both of my marriages were civil (courthouse); we had to reply "I will."

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 113. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Having movies on the brain now… With the NOMFAIL tour drawing to a close, I wonder if it might be possible to get hands on that bus and do it up a-la Priscilla Queen of the Desert…

  • 114. Keith  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Does this mean that his ruling can't be appealed? From how I understand it, only the state officials whom the case was brought against have standing to appeal and they refused to pursue it. Will the 9th court refuse to listen to the case and allow Walker's decision to stand? I want gay marriage at the federal level so we can get the same benefits that the bigots get.

  • 115. paul  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Does anyone know if Dennis Hollingsworth (proponent of Prop 8) ever gave a deposition? I received half a dozen hateful pieces of mail (USPS) from his office, on his letterhead, during the build up to the vote on Prop 8 and haven't heard anything from him since.
    Not a witness but with a lot to say about Marriage Equality!
    Mailings that had my blood boiling!
    Where did he slither off to and why is he nowhere to be found regarding his Proposition?
    Anybody know anything???

  • 116. Hanou  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:19 am

    More importantly, Walker examined all 4 aspects that go into deciding to grant or deny a stay, and found that all 4 went our way. Even if the 9th Circuit thinks they have Standing, that still only gets them a tiny part, and they would likely STILL deny the stay.

  • 117. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Let them eat wedding cake?

  • 118. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Yes, but that post answers exactly the kinds of questions that are going to be all over this site — it had to do with what comes next.

  • 119. Cat  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:21 am

    I'm not sure it is a joke. It is very logical. Proponents must show they might be harmed. For the "cloud of uncertainty" to be a harm to them they must be considering to wed a same-sex spouse. It's Vulcan-level logic, really.

  • 120. Keith  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:23 am

    And remember, they told the judge that they didn't need evidence to defend their position. WTF! That is laughable. It's like they're living in their own fairy tale land.

  • 121. bonobo  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:25 am

    6 more days, if it goes our way.

  • 122. Josiah  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:27 am

    My understanding is that the Ninth Circuit will have to rule on whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal or not. Olsen and Boies suggested in their filing that the proponents may not have standing, and in his most recent ruling Judge Walker indicated that he agreed; however, the opinion that matters is the opinion of the Ninth Circuit judges. I don't think that the question of standing is an open-and-shut matter.

  • 123. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:27 am

    @ Breaking the Silence

    How about everyone who gets married on the first day sends Judge Walker a piece of wedding cake?

  • 124. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Actualy, Fiona, that's not the reason Walker denied Imperial County's motion to intervene. He noted that they were late, but given that they only wanted to intervene in order to appeal, it wasn't a problem.

    The real reason is that they couldn't demonstrate a sufficient stake in the matter. They are a county, not the state, and as such, they just follow the state's laws wrt marriage.

  • 125. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:30 am

    @Fiona, it's OK. Sorry to nit-pick, it's in my "naytcha".

    Um, while I'm at it, the motion of Imperial County was denied on grounds other than that their motion was late, which is good, because the lateness didn't actually harm anyone and it would have been sort of petty to deny it on those grounds.

    Love ya,
    Ann

  • 126. bJason  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:30 am

    What would we do without you?!!!!

    This is great news – get these clocks ticking.

    Now if we could get a ruling on the LCR DADT case.

  • 127. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Capital idea, Sagesse! Heck, I'd like to bake him a cake of I were any good at it. Wouldn't bear the symbolic value either, though.. :)

  • 128. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:37 am

    You can read all the court filings relevant to this motion at: http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

    See
    Doc 705 – Proponents' Motion to Stay pending Appeal
    Doc 716 – Attorney General's Opposition to Motion to Stay
    Doc 717 – Administrations (including Schwartzenegger's Opposition to Motion to Stay
    Doc 718 – Plaintiffs' and P-Is (City/County of SF) Opposition to Motion to stay

  • 129. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:40 am

    I doubt the judge would ever see one piece of cake…i imagine he has already had death threats. I think I read where the judge in MA has been receiving death threats over his ruling of Section III of DOMA.

    Send a nice thank you card and invite him to your wedding.

  • 130. Mandy  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:40 am

    good question. I know in bk law there is an automatic stay (now 14 days used to be 10 days) on relief from stay orders but it can be waived.

  • 131. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Ann S, it's my understanding that ANY party who wishes to appeal this judgment must do so within the next 30 days. No?

  • 132. fern  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Ah nom de dieu de nom de dieu!
    because of the gay agenda we'll have to send pepto bismol and antacid to the Vatican so they don't suffer after eating their garments.

  • 133. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:46 am

    I think you're right, Kathleen. Then again, I have to wonder if (please no) the state could move to intervene in an ongoing appeal. Since this case seems to have so many twists and turns . . .

  • 134. E from Sarasota  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Once again Judge Walker has written an articulate, well-reasoned, complete analysis and developed a ruling with solid foundation. My consideration of this gentleman has exceeded that of most all other mortals.

    Now, if only we could get Boies, Olson, and crew to come to Florida and help us fight the constitutional amendment and gay adoption laws in front of an equally astute judge . . .

  • 135. Jim  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:49 am

    New York Times' headline is more nuanced, saying: "Judge Allows, but Delays, Gay Marriage in California"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us/13prop.html?hp

  • 136. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:49 am

    I think he was on their original witness list, but like most of their witnesses, didn't want to face David Boies in cross.

  • 137. E from Sarasota  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:50 am

    IF (such a big word) the Ninth Circuit rules that Proponents of Prop 8 do NOT have standing to appeal, they will most likely appeal THAT ruling to SCOTUS. Remember, any ruling on anything can be appealed to a higher level.

  • 138. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:54 am

    @LLB, wonderful idea. :)

  • 139. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Or flowers!

  • 140. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:57 am

    @Ann S

    If you needed any more reason (and you don't) don't elect the SOBs.

  • 141. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 7:59 am

    @Sagesse, we're trying. We're really, really, trying.

  • 142. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Interesting article on whether the "right" might decide not to appeal at all.
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-

  • 143. JefferyK  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Okay. I stand corrected RE: taking a vow at city hall.

  • 144. Trish  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Note: even though they've filed notice of appeal, they can drop their appeal. I doubt it's likely, but some pundits are saying it would be the smart move for marriage equality opponents.

  • 145. AndrewPDX  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Count DeMoney: Sire, the people are revolting!
    King Louie: you're right; they stink on ice!
    History of the World, Part I

    Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité
    Andrew

  • 146. Steve  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Some judges sneak in some humor here and there. Dry one, but still funny.

    Walker did that too in the original ruling.

  • 147. Mandy  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:11 am

    "Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California"

    31??????????

  • 148. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Gay Marriage's Biggest Supporters: Children of Gay Parents

    Those who are most optimistic may not be the couples themselves. A whole population is affected by this decision, a quieter, (sometimes physically) smaller population, and one that has become increasingly political over the last decade. Their stake in the marriage debate, whether they are gay or straight, is one much more fundamental than that of "allies" or friendly supporters.
    I am speaking, of course, of the children of the gay men and lesbians who hope to marry, the children of those who hope to lift the discrimination levied on their families — homes where two women love one another, or two men.

    Read More: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/12/gay-marri

  • 149. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Fascinating. But…. but… but….

    All it takes is one other state to bring all the same arguments, and there go your other 31 states regardless.

    They're dancing as fast as they can.

  • 150. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:21 am

    I seem to recall reading a decision written by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge for the 9th Circuit, in which he referenced his own shoe size.

  • 151. Keith  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:26 am

    The ninth should rule the same way I would think. There are no grounds for an appeal since the defendants decided to agree with Walker's ruling.

  • 152. Sagesse  |  August 12, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Note to Courage Campaign…. when you're putting together yours ads, READ THIS.

    Also really neat:

    "In Iowa the children signed on to the case as co-plaintiffs. It was a strategy that worked well to combat those on the opposite side: claiming that "protecting" marriage was in behalf of the children. Lambda Legal, arguing for the gay and lesbian couples, argued that if the argument addressed the children – the real, live children should be involved."

  • 153. AndrewPDX  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I wholeheartedly agree!
    The Proponents, NOM, Tony Perkins and the like keep harping "we need to protect the children."
    But we know here that the children are harmed when their parents cannot marry.
    Hearing this directly from the children themselves debunks NOM's fallacies much better than the couples do.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 154. Bennett  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:34 am

    NOM and other conservatives will now pull out all the stops with incindary remarks and "press releases."

    I think FOX"news" is doing it now by including a link about a professor who is claiming that he was fired because he was gay right in their breaking new section about the Prop 8 stay being lifted.

    Brian Brown is doing it by claiming that Judge Walker is "lifting the ban . . . during the appeals process" and ignoring the fact that the judge delayed the lifting of his stay for a period of time specifically to allow higher courts to act if they desired to do so.

    (I guess the truth just didn't suit Brian's little smear campaing!)

    Just saying, be prepared for a full on assult and smear campaign.

  • 155. Bennett  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Oh No! I mispelled "incendiary." Now I can never run for president!

  • 156. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:38 am

    You might be able to redeem yourself in the public eye by going after unwed mothers.

  • 157. Bennett  |  August 12, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Funny how the "right to vote" is invoked, it makes me laugh at how cynical NOM is. Right to vote's incendiary value, lies with the African American's struggle and Woman's struggle to be allowed to vote, "at all" for lack of a more articulate way of putting it. To register? Not in the sense of being able to vote on any particular matter. In elections, there is no discrimination against certain voters. All registered voters are able to participate. Most of these people claiming that their right to vote has been taken away are registered voters and VOTED. Funny how checks and balances and an independant judiciary were never an issue until their bigotry was called out.

  • 158. Bennett  |  August 12, 2010 at 10:08 am

    What an awesome website. Thanks Courage Campaign!

  • 159. Keith  |  August 12, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Their children need to be protected from their crazy parents

  • 160. Carol  |  August 12, 2010 at 10:52 am

    I don't think their marriage would make the case moot as to them because until the decision is final they wouldn't know whether the marriage is going to remain valid. Also, the other parties who have standing (the state and counties) would still need to know how to proceed.

    Also, a court can decide that even though subsequent events have made a case factually moot, the likelihood that similar situations will arise in the future and that a decision will be needed justifies deciding a "moot" case.

  • 161. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:01 am

    "They are my people. I am their sovereign. I love them. PULL!" (Peasant launches as a clay pigeon.). How I love that movie.

  • 162. Kathleen  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Carol, wrt the last statement, can you point to an example of a court deciding to go forward with a case based on that justification?

  • 163. Ann S.  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:17 am

    This is not my area (none of this is, frankly), but I'm not sure I agree. If they marry I think the case may become moot. The Arizonans for Official English case was dismissed because the one named plaintiff quit her job during the appeals.

    I think if the stay is lifted, those marriages are not necessarily voided even if Walker is later overturned, and so the case might become moot if the plaintiffs marry.

  • 164. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:19 am

    No worries. We recently suffered 8 years under a man who flushed the economy down the toilet and thrust us into two unfunded wars without being able to pronounce the word "nuclear." 😉

  • 165. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Anonygrl, I did not mean to imply that waiting the six days was going to be easy. I was only trying to gain a little perspective on things by relating a six day wait to the length of the wait that has already occurred. To be honest, I am sort of jealous of everyone in California for the prize being so close to arriving. I hope we can get Olson and Boies for the case in North Carolina on behalf of all of us who have had to face extra financial costs by going out of state, only to arrive home and not have our marriages recognized by the government here. Especially for those of us who will have to make two trips to DC due to the length of time between getting the marriage licenses and being able to use them Oh if only we had the money for two round-trip tickets to LAX for this coming Thursday.

  • 166. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:24 am

    @ Anonygrl: Love your wit! Actually, I think G-d would probably tell the D-I's "Don't make me take off my earrings!"

  • 167. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Why, what has he spewed out of his diseased brain now?

  • 168. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:33 am

    I loved that one. It was basically Judge Walker's way of saying "so what's it to you? You claim you're straight, so that 'cloud of uncertainty' should not matter to you."

  • 169. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:38 am

    And have it pulling the Cadillac from "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar"!

  • 170. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 11:43 am

    @ Breaking the Silence & Sagesse: And a picture of each happy couple holding up their marriage license and/or certificate.

  • 171. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    And let's not forget the case in Hawaii that was filed against Gov. Lingle's CU veto, and the case that has just been filed in Alaska wrt the tax inequities we face due to DOMA.

  • 172. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Amen on that one! And who would come the closest in Florida to Judge Wallker's sagacity &erudition?

  • 173. nightshayde  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    I'm SO glad I didn't have a mouthful of tea when I read that.

    Thanks for the laugh!

    (that always drove me nuts, too)

  • 174. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    And don't forget cojones, you betcha!

  • 175. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    @ Mandy: Currently, there are 31 states with DOMA amendments on their books. They are saying that if Perry v. Schwarzenegger goes to SCOTUS, that it will result in all of those being declared unconstitutional and meaning that marriage equality would then be pretty much nationwide, which is the last thing the AFA, NOM, President Momson and the rest of the right wingnuts want.

  • 176. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    This is why I know in my heart that we are doing the right thing when we bring our children with us to our marriage equality rallies. Let them try to counter the truth that comes from the mouths of babes.

  • 177. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 12, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Why should that stop you? Remember, Dan Quayle couldn't even spell potatoes.

  • 178. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    @Nightshayde, most welcome!

  • 179. Analysis of Judge Walker&&hellip  |  August 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    […] denial of the stay–and are saying that marriages may resume immediately. As Adam reported earlier this  afternoon, that’s not that […]

  • 180. Keith  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Since the gov and AG declined to pursue, the gay haters have no standing for an appeal. Marriage will be legal in CA beginning the 18th. YAAAAAAAA!!!!

  • 181. Breaking the Silence  |  August 12, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    And take a pic of it all parked in front of The Birdcage. 😀

  • 182. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    You are right about that. They are goign to go "All In" right now. We ahve to be prepared to meet them face to face. We need to give money and time to our quest to end Discrimination against the GLBT community.

  • 183. Straight Grandmother  |  August 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    The best term I have heard is by a fellow poster here, "Gender Neutral Marriage"

  • 184. Keith  |  August 13, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Our two sons are ardent supporters of gay rights and gay marriage. They've seen the harm the other side causes and they don't want others to be treated that way.

  • 185. #NOMtourFAIL: Post-Prop 8&hellip  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:13 am

    […] couples in California could again begin to marry on August 18th (if you missed it, we covered it here and analyzed here), we came to Harrisburg expecting all kinds of Sturm und Drang from NOM. Instead, […]

  • 186. Vynce  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    (can we edit the "breaking" out of the subject line? this one's done broken…)

  • 187. #NOMtourFAIL: Post-Prop 8&hellip  |  September 28, 2010 at 7:26 am

    […] couples in California could again begin to marry on August 18th (if you missed it, we covered it here and analyzed here), we came to Harrisburg expecting all kinds of Sturm und Drang from NOM. Instead, […]

  • 188. She’s learning wedd&hellip  |  December 3, 2010 at 1:27 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… […]

  • 189. Cool Mike Lee images - Ba&hellip  |  June 1, 2011 at 8:40 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 190. BJP iPad App – Maki&hellip  |  August 23, 2011 at 8:07 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 191. Phil Ting & Ed Lee ta&hellip  |  August 23, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 192. Cool Ipad 2 Announcement &hellip  |  October 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 193. Cool Law Clerk images | A&hellip  |  November 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 194. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 195. Nice Law Clerk photos | A&hellip  |  November 13, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 196. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 197. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 198. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 199. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 15, 2011 at 4:45 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 200. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 201. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 15, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 202. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 16, 2011 at 7:42 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 203. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 18, 2011 at 7:58 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 204. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 18, 2011 at 9:03 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 205. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 19, 2011 at 3:52 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 206. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  December 28, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 207. April Midnight Show Poste&hellip  |  March 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 208. Nice Ipad 2 Announcement &hellip  |  May 17, 2012 at 10:44 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 209. She’s learning wedd&hellip  |  July 6, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… […]

  • 210. Articles » Nice Leg&hellip  |  September 10, 2012 at 2:59 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 211. Articles » Cool Leg&hellip  |  September 10, 2012 at 3:00 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) More analysis will be posted at […]

  • 212. Articles » Cool Leg&hellip  |  September 10, 2012 at 3:00 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 213. Articles » Nice Leg&hellip  |  September 10, 2012 at 3:03 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) More analysis will be posted at […]

  • 214. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  September 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 215. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  September 27, 2012 at 12:31 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 216. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  September 29, 2012 at 7:25 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 217. Cool Legal images –&hellip  |  September 30, 2012 at 5:24 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 218. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  October 2, 2012 at 8:28 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 219. Nice Learning The Ipad ph&hellip  |  October 6, 2012 at 3:20 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 220. She’s learning wedd&hellip  |  October 13, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… […]

  • 221. Prop 8 decision stay in S&hellip  |  October 25, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    […] … (includes a link to a PDF of the decision) Further analysis will be displayed prop8trialtracker.com Photos of last week and over the past years Filed Under: Counseling Marriage Tagged With: City, […]

  • 222. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 223. Cool Learning The Ipad im&hellip  |  November 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 224. Nice Learn The Ipad photo&hellip  |  November 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 225. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  November 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 226. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  December 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 227. Nice Legal photos –&hellip  |  December 25, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 228. Cool Learn The Ipad image&hellip  |  December 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

  • 229. Prop 8 stay decision at S&hellip  |  December 31, 2012 at 8:13 am

    […] prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/12/breaking-judge-walker-to… (includes link to a PDF of the decision) […]

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