Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Prop 8 Stay Reaction, Part 1: Marriage is Imminent

Background Trial analysis Videos

(Karen, news editor at Frontiers IN LA magazine and who maintains her own blog at LGBTPOV, took her time digesting what happened yesterday and writing her first-hand account of what happened in West Hollywood, and her pieces show it. You can feel the emotion of the couples waiting, the tension in the air, through Karen’s writing. More to come this evening -Adam)

Cross-posted at LGBTPOV

by Karen Ocamb

Stay - Waiting at the parkA journalist is supposed to remain above the fray, opinion-less, so as to report fairly on any given story. But every now and then a reporter’s humanity or an affront to integrity throws a sharp elbow at that commitment to objectivity and some emotion yelps out in response. Pain swiftly yields to disappointment and sadness then anger as some assaulting epiphany settles in.

That’s what happened to me Thursday while covering the latest Prop 8 story. Armed with my notebook, tape recorder and camera, I was prepared to brave the long day, excited to be an eyewitness to history. Though caked in caveats, it seemed everyone’s opinion was that – given Judge Vaughn Walker’s extraordinary, thorough ruling last week that Prop 8 is unconstitutional – surely he would lift the temporary stay and same sex couples would again be allowed to legally marry in California. In fact, many people thought that the stay was automatically lifted by the end of day last Friday, Aug. 6 – but it turned out that was the deadline for everyone to file motions on whether Walker should lift the stay or extend it while Perry v. Schwarzenegger went through the expect long appeals process.

Then over the weekend, after government-defenders Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger filed papers saying they would not appeal and that same sex couples should be allowed the freedom to marry immediately – a new wrinkle emerged. In their motion arguing against a stay, the plaintiffs’ lawyers publically dropped a ticking time bomb that some lawyers had been whispering about among themselves: did the proponents of Prop 8, who Walker allowed to come in as defendant-interveners, have the legal “standing” to appeal the case?

Stay - Olson Boies
Olsen & Boies at WeHo celebration last week.
Stay - Olson Boies

It was something the plaintiffs’ attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies mentioned during the celebratory rally in West Hollywood and during a spate of incredible TV appearances over the weekend. Jon Davidson, Legal Director for Lambda Legal, gave a thoughtful explanation for LGBT POV last Sunday.

But a lot of questions remained – for instance, if the proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing, would Meg Whitman or Steve Cooley be able to intervene if they were elected governor and attorney general, respectively? Both have said they would defend Prop 8 as state law. Well, that depends on whether they would beat the clock on a court deadline by the time they would be sworn in, if elected in November.

The week started on a high of enthusiasm. The ruling felt like a victory for truth, a vindication of our very being. LGBTs began to truly savor Walker’s ruling – just as we had with California Chief Justice Ronald George’s marriage equality ruling on May 15, 2008 – and a quiet, emotional groundswell started to emerge, assured that Walker would lift the stay and same sex couples could start getting married again. And yet there was also still much confusion. To paraphrase the late author Paul Monette, it felt like dancing in a minefield.

When the court announced that Walker would issue his ruling between 9:00am and noon on Thursday – everyone and everything seemed to shift into fast gear. No one could sleep: marriage equality was imminent.

I put out advisories, as did others, to alert same sex couples to apply for their marriage license online, pick it up at the Beverly Hills Courthouse, and then drive to West Hollywood City Hall where the five deputized city council members would be waiting to perform civil marriages. Many of us assumed there might be only a small window of opportunity in which couples could marry since the Prop 8 proponents, who had already filed an appeal of Walker’s ruling with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, were expected to dash to the 9th Circuit for an emergency stay after Walker gave the go-ahead to marry.

West Hollywood City Clerk Tom West waits for Judge Walker's decision.

West Hollywood City Clerk Tom West created a space in nearby Kings Road Park where council members – starting with Mayor Pro Tem John Duran – would marry as many couples as possible on a first-come, first serve basis for as long as marriage was legal.

Duran, plus Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first Southern California couple to legally marry on June 16, 2008, were there to talk to the gaggle of media waiting for the ruling. Other media focused on the federal courthouse in Beverly Hills and in San Francisco.

Gradually, others such as Rodney Scott from Christopher Street West and Valerie Wagner from AIDS Project Los Angeles (pictured above with John Duran and Robin Tyler) arrived, as well.

The waiting was excruciating. Unite the Fight blogger Phillip Minton, who was there helping me with video, decided to register online with his partner Loch over the phone. When some of the media got wind of what he was doing, he was suddenly the center of a swirl of attention. Phillip was torn between staying to capture reaction after the ruling and leaving to go to the Beverly Hills courthouse to complete the process of obtaining a marriage license.

Phillip interviewed 1
Phillip Minton is interviewed by reporters at King's Road Park in West Hollywood.
Phillip interviewed 1

As the clock ticked closer to noon, my concern grew. I asked West if the Beverly Hills courthouse clerks were going to break for lunch at noon. No, he said, they were going to stay there to take care of all the couples standing in line waiting for the ruling.

There was an almost-spiritual kinship among straight and gay and passers by at Kings Road, as well as with couples in San Francisco and at the courthouse – a kind of pre-catharsis anticipating a shared blockbuster experience. It felt like freedom and equality was just a Blackberry email away.

Parts Two and Three of the series will be published later this evening and tomorrow morning, respectively. Stay tuned…


  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:01 am


  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:03 am


  • 3. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Don't you mean "DOOM is Imminent"? That's what NOM has been saying, so it must be true.

  • 4. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Crap. forgot the box.

  • 5. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:05 am


  • 6. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:17 am

    OMG! What a powerful piece. And in my opinion, Karen's emotions only add to the power of this piece.
    @Alan E. Thanks for reminding me that I am not the only one who forgets to click that little box.

  • 7. cc  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Well written, and can't wait for the next snippets even though I fear I will be tearing up as I read on.

  • 8. Anonygrl  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:39 am

    How on earth can the appellants say that the emotions of these people, waiting for joy, are not damaged by these stays?

    How can they even look at themselves in the mirror?

  • 9. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Every time my inbox threatens to empty… which is not right now….

  • 10. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:43 am

    me too.

  • 11. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:54 am

    UPDATE: Imperial County joins Appellants' (Proponents') Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Filed 8/13/2010

    Another note on numbering: The Appeals Court has assigned a separate case number for Imperial County's request to intervene. As such, the documents will be coming in with their own numbering system. I'll be assigning those documents the name "CA9Doc Imperial #" to distinguish them.

  • 12. JonT  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:57 am


  • 13. JonT  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Uhm, me too :(

  • 14. JC  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Ah, there's the answer I was seeking on the other thread! I shoulda known I was just in the wrong place…. Thanks again, Kathleen!

  • 15. Alex  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:14 am

    If the intervenors didn't have a right to intervene in the first place thus Walker stating they lack standing for appeal. So in any sense we have lost this case.

  • 16. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Nothing much new from Imperial County. They want to intervene in order to appeal, they claim they have a "significant protectible interest", no other government officials are defending, proponents might not have standing so they want to intervene in order to appeal, blah blah blah. We've seen all this before.

    It will be interesting to see what the 9th Circuit has to say about Imperial County (and the proponents, of course!).

  • 17. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Sorry, what?

  • 18. Anna Bryan  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I have to say, I'm feeling like boycotting Imperial County…

  • 19. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:58 am

    I already do…I live in Arizona.

    In all seriousness, can they act for the entire state in a government capacity?

  • 20. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:00 am

    UPDATE: Attorney General's Opposition to Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.

  • 21. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Short and sweet…I like it. Do you think that the governor's office will do the same, or would that be duplicity?

  • 22. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

    It was a bit… anti-climactic.

  • 23. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

    If I were in California right now, I would find Jerry Brown and give him a great big hug!

  • 24. bJason  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:08 am

    CRIPES! The beat goes on but it is 9pm in my corner of the world. I must now to some form of dinner and then bed, Leave the light on and I will see you all 1st thing tomorrow.

    My love and thanks to all here.

    <3 Jason

  • 25. Anna Bryan  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:16 am

    I don't see mention of Imperial County's protectible interest, their irreparable harm, or their standing. I think they say they have all these things, but then they dont say what they are. Do they hope that the court will fill in the blanks for them?

    I am really beginning to wonder, can Prop 8 proponents not secure respectable counsel?

  • 26. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Pleasant dreams, Jason. xoxo

  • 27. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:20 am

    No, Anna, they cannot. And the biggest reason they can't is because they are trying to violate the US Constitution and codify one set of religious beliefs over all the other religious beliefs, and lack of religious beliefs, that we in this country have a guaranteed right to. At least, that is my understanding of our constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression–that not only do we have a right to freedom OF religion, but also a right to freedom FROM religion. If I am wrong, I am certain that one of our legal eagles on here will correct me.

  • 28. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:21 am

    My ignorance is going to shine through again…

    Was this document filing supposed to be the proof they need in order to get heard on the matter? Or was this their one shot chance at this?

    Or is this document just to tell the 9th Circuit they want to become involved…and then they will get a chance to 'stand' before the 9th to state their case why.

    Bad wording I know, but I can't clarify.

  • 29. Bennett  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Say thanks with a small donation at I think I did, but have to check my receipts. I try to donate to every campaign that is making a difference as I learn about them.

  • 30. Anna Bryan  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am

    This was only a filing regarding the stay, but they bring up the issue of standing, harm, etc, but don't carry it any further.

  • 31. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:37 am

    @ Bennett: I will go to the website and get the snail mail address. At present, trying to do internet contributions is not feasible for me, but I will send something. Thanks for the link.

  • 32. Bennett  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:41 am

    This issue wears me out sometimes, the injustice of the whole thing and having to mobilize in every way possible before NOM cements prejudice and mis-information into peoples minds. Speaking of Harm, we shouldnt even have to deal with all this. But we have to, because as you know, first impressions are not easily changed and it does matter who brings their message to some individuals first. However, I believe that their is room for fair minded people's view to evolve over time without necessarily taking a path through outright bigotry. I myself have taken that path over a very long period of time. Another thing I would like for people to understand is that Religous view are instilled at a very young age and are kind of like an opperating system on a computer, hope thats a good analogy. When you change your religeous beliefs, it is almost impossible to fully find peace with your new path. Religeon is like that, you know before you leave the implications and you never fully shake them. Someone who has taken such a journey can be very conflicted. I wouldnt even know what it was like for someone to have been born and raised in a religeon free envirnoment. But I know fully what it is like to have been indoctrinated with opposing religeous views from family and various churches and schools. Not sure if i have rambled to far off the path, but going to hit the post button now. Hope this is coherant and somewhat relevant.

  • 33. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:45 am

    LLB, They've already filed their notice to appeal with the 9th Circuit (intent to appeal both Walker's decision and the denial of their status as intervenors).

    The decision as to whether or not they'll be allowed to intervene will come later, though I would expect the 9th Circuit to at least comment on the issue when they decide on the stay.

    This brief is just Imperial County making it abundantly clear that they join in the Appellants' (Proponents') emergency motion for a stay. They will likely continue to join in like this on motions until a decision is finally made about whether they can intervene.

  • 34. JC  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:45 am

    I just submitted a thank-you note via the AG's official site, since it seemed Jerry was keen to distinguish between his campaign site and his official role as AG. FWIW, you can submit comments via this web form:

  • 35. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:47 am

    I do agree Bennett. I think it is why we know that the older generations have a very hard time grasping homosexuality. And and But, I don't want to have to wait for the younger generation to catch up to reality that I am the same as them, just gay. I happen to be alive today. Let them have their bigotry, but not at my living expense.

  • 36. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I submitted one too.

  • 37. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:55 am

    So did I. Thanks for the link, JC!

  • 38. Bennett  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    I agree, and let me add/clarify. As a someone who was lived a long time in conservative religeous circles, I can tell you that most religeous people are outright fakes enjoying the benefits of a church family/social club. Religon fills a large part of some peoples social need. But amimus and prejudice are all they are about. Some are not. But why they can't live their religon inwardly and have to "bring it into my life" so to speak, I dont understand. Theocracy is very dangerous. You only have to look at the crusades and the inquisition to know that.

  • 39. Bennett  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Plus, any child can see through NOM lies. At least they could see the exaggeration and hyperbole and find that it is at odds with their desire to be honest.

  • 40. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    As a Californian, anything ANYone can do, including all of you from out of state, to support his campaign will be greatly appreciated! The thought of Meg Whitman becoming governor gives me nightmares.

  • 41. Bob  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Bennett, I'm hearing ya, it is hard to be the one changing, and growing in terms of spirituality, having our isntilled beliefs challenged places us in a position to do that, but we are still left with a family and community (church) of bigots

    And I agree with you, those who have not been endoctrinated this way, have a feedom they may not even appreciate or understand.

    The freedom we acquire by moving beyond misguided reliigious beliefs, comeswith a sense of responsibilty of doing something about it, this new awareness, is what is unsettling, but I am positive I am much more at peace now, even with all this disruption to family , than I ever had been, pretending otherwise.

    At the end of the day, I have to find a way to act equal and be equal, to a family of bigots. That is what is disturbing, and the only thing that gets me through is thinking, a few generations from now that won't be necessary.

    They say the witness box is a lonely place, let thm try witnessing the truth to a family of bigots. (you're not alone)

  • 42. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Yay! finally home and can now 'scribe :)

  • 43. Bob  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    re: all these hiccups, remember during the trial, all the times Judge Walker, allowed things into evidence, and made decisions whiling saying regarding things like standing, we'll deal with that later. welllll this is later, and the beat is going on.

  • 44. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Didn't she get into some trouble over her handling of ebay and PayPal?

  • 45. Sarah  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    @Bennett: I think what we often run into is those people who are taught at their churches that their mission is to show people "the Way" so that they can be "saved". Although I think being a Bible-Beater (as I like to call them!) is more counterproductive than not, some people see it as their duty as good Christians. It still baffles my mind sometimes, but that is how they feel about it. Instead of trying to fight this deeply held belief, we need to be little lights of Truth about who we are and what God is really like.

    BTW everybody, there is an awesome satirical movie called "Saved" that I find a great commentary on Christianity and Christians; it even deals with the issue of homosexuality. If you are Christian with a thick skin or more open-minded outlook, or just want a good laugh, I would recommend it highly!

  • 46. Alex  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Obviously people don't like my post. I am gay, I am not some right winger trolling this page. lol

  • 47. Sarah  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    What makes you say that we have lost this case?

  • 48. Bob  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I totally here what you're saying Alex, Judge Walker did rush some evidience into the record, and seemed to allow for a lot of decisions to be reviewed later, and this is later, as I stated on another thread,

    If the case is sent back to Walker we may be in a pickle, and Nom would really spin that .

    wait and see, wait and see, some newspaper article I read characterized us as the most patient minority , waiting for our rights .

  • 49. Sarah  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    It has been my understanding from some of the well-informed posters here, that although they DID have standing in the first part of the case, that does not mean that they necessarily have standing to appeal. It does not mean the whole thing has been in vain.

  • 50. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Alex, I don't think we understand what you're trying to say. The only part I 'get' is your claim that we've lost the case. What makes you think that's true? Can you try to explain what you mean?

    Thanks, and welcome.

  • 51. Alex  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    What I a trying to say is that the yes on 8 people were allowed to intervene. Then they aren't allowed to appeal. A legal expert that made a comment to the Times says since they have no standing to appeal they might not even have any standing to be allowed to intervene. Thus would either throw the case out by 9th circuit or be sent back to walker. Does that make any sense? lol

  • 52. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    If the intervenors (, the Yeson8 guys) don't have standing, then there is no appeal and Judge Walker's ruling stands and we have same-sex couples allowed to wed in California — but only California.

    Alex, is that what you mean when you say 'we have lost this case'? Sitting up here in Oregon, where we have a similar constitutional ban on allowing same-sex couples to marry, I still have to wait … 'course, I'm also waiting for my Prince to come, tho, before I get to marry :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 53. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    It is not that we don't like your post. Your wording confused us. It is somewhat confusing and not really complete in expressing what you are trying to say.
    Why do you think we have lost the Prop H8 case? The D-i's had standing to intervene in the original case. That does not necessarily mean that they automatically have standing for the appeal. There is a bit of a difference there. Their standing may have to be determined again at 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • 54. Alex  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    No I am saying we would lose the case if it's either thrown out or sent back to walker. Wouldn't we? That is if the 9th circuit says the yes on 8 people shouldn't have been allowed to intervene.

  • 55. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    @Alex, I'm no lawyer (all I know I learned from Kathleen, Ann, Trish, Brian D, and Matlock), but the original defendants (the Governor and Attorney General of CA) both said they didn't want to contest the case. Had the intervenors not stepped in, the judge would have summarily ruled for the Plaintiffs anyways, I think. So we'd still have same-sex couples allowed to marry, but only in California.

    If the case does get appealed to the 9CC, there is a chance that they could send it back to Walker, or overturn it completely, or only partially, or whatever… that is the chance we have. But with no appeal, we win (for CA) :)

    Ann, Kathleen, Trish, anybody, please correct me if I'm wrong!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 56. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    I've seen a lot of legal experts with a lot of different opinions on what might happen next and what the possible implications might be of Proponents not having standing to appeal. I saw the one you're referring to and, frankly, his seems to be a bit of a lone voice for that particular scenario.

    Obviously, we'll just have to wait and see how the appeals courts handle it. Most of the legal analysis I've seen has explained that there is a different standard for intervening at the trial court level than there is at the appeals court level. Walker seems to have ruled correctly in allowed the Proponents to intervene in his court.

    Btw, I've seen people suggest that the attorneys don't appear to have known about this issue before. That's not the case. In fact, it was recognizing this might be an issue that motivated Imperial County to ask to be an Intervenor back in December of last year. It just wasn't something they've talked about much and it was definitely not on my radar until Walker denied IC's motion last week.

  • 57. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Andrew, you will find your prince, and when you do, you will know the full meaning of the Rascal Flatts hit "Broken Road."

  • 58. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Alex, I mostly answered you above. But I'll add that if it's decided that there are no parties with standing to appeal, I'm pretty sure that the consequence would be as Andrew stated – Walker's ruling would stand, Prop 8 is gone, but the case wouldn't set precedent for any other jurisdiction.

  • 59. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    @Kathleen, as always, I agree with you. Meg Whitman would be a disaster for our state. Please help elect Jerry Brown to be governor!

    Meg Whitman is very anti-equality, and there are a host of other reasons, too.

    Not to mention that she has voted but very rarely.

    How is she to know what the voters want, when she isn't one???

  • 60. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    @Alex, it wasn't that I didn't like what you said, I simply did not understand what you said. Could you re-phrase, please?

  • 61. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Alex, thanks for restating. I don't fully understand why a party can have standing at trial but not to appeal, but I understand that that is the case. I think that the odds that Walker would be asked to re-try the case are slim.

    The explanation I have read is that at trial there is already a "case or controversy", so it doesn't really hurt to let them intervene at trial. However, if there is no party with a real stake in the outcome (someone with "Article III standing", that is, someone who will be really hurt if the outcome does not go their way) at the appellate level, then the courts should not take up their time with it.

  • 62. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    @Alex, I view it the opposite — if there is no appeal, we WIN. It is true that the holding would only apply in California, but it is a win nonetheless.

  • 63. Bob  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Alex, I guess it depends where you live as to weather it's a win or not, if there's no appeal, California wins, yahooo for them, but without precedent for other states,

    does that mean what I think it does in that other states couldn't reference Walkers ruling, and they have to start all over.

    Sort of like taking the wind out of Walkers sails, and leaving the rest of the States open for NOM attacks

  • 64. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Bob, what is meant by binding precedent is that other judges are required to follow the legal holding from the case. District Court decisions don't set binding precedent; they basically just apply to the people in the state where they were decided.

    However, even if that is what happens, the case is still useful in a couple of ways. It can be used for what is called 'persuasive' authority – that is, a party could point to the ruling as a way of making an argument that they should get a similar decision, even though the court wouldn't be required to agree. More importantly, this case has built an impressive evidentiary record — one that could be extremely helpful to anyone who wants to mount a similar challenge in other state.

  • 65. Bob  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Thanks Kathleen, and so from a distance, ie another country, I see this as a win/win specifically because of the "impressive evidentuary record" and that's what has global appeal, no one has taken on the religious right in such a thorough, documented, dialog before, and it is dialog that defeats their beliefs, for all of us who attemp these dialogs with family and church, that part of the case alone has been most impressive, and hopefully will have far reaching impact.

  • 66. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    I read that and assumed Alex was a troll. After careful thought, he might have mistyped (as many of us do from time to time to time to time to time…and time again.)

  • 67. Shawnna  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Gays & Lesbians Suck! and They all should be Banned / abolished , Say No to Same Sex Marriage , Say NO To Gays and Lesbians , They Are Sick Mentally Ill People and Need to be Cured , same goes for anyone of any Organized religion such as Muslims , Jews < Catholics and Everything else that's an organized religion!! May they All Burn in Hell!! Long Live the Atheists , Agnostics and Wiccans and Pagans!! Long may Live the free thinking peoples of this earth No More Sickness No more Perversions And no more Mind control!! thank you !! YAY!

  • 68. Fluffyskunk  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:50 am

    If the intervenors didn't have a right to intervene in the first place, it could invalidate the entire trial and the case would be sent back to the district court for a retrial (and Prop 8 would still be in effect). In that sense we would then have lost the case, for now.

  • 69. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Excuse me!?! Are you a closeted Southern Baptist? Either that or you are a NOMbie, which is even worse!

  • 70. Fluffyskunk  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Oops, ignore my post, I somehow managed to miss the entire exchange below. I'll go back to lurking now. :-)

  • 71. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Bless your heart, Shawnna.

  • 72. Prop 8 Stay Reaction, Par&hellip  |  August 14, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    […] Hollywood and reaction to Judge Walker’s ruling on Thursday. Parts one and two can be found here and here, respectively […]

  • 73. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Well you got one thing right Shawnna, you repugnant, Fascist, un-American, non-human Porcine, Gay's do suck but Lesbians (well I wouldn't know anything about that because I'm not a Lesbian)

    Shawnna, trash like you should be incarcerated permanently in a mental institution, tied down, & never allowed human contact other then the doctors & nurses that keep you heavily medicated so you don't hurt yourself because you are unequivocally unhinged & a few frontal lobes short of a rock filled brain . You are a sick mentally ill person (& I use the word "person" very loosely) & need to be cured of your hate.


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