Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Prop 8 Stay Reaction, Part 3: Why I’m Angry

Background Trial analysis

(Third and final part of Karen’s series exploring the scene in West Hollywood and reaction to Judge Walker’s ruling on Thursday. Parts one and two can be found here and here, respectively -Adam)

by Karen Ocamb

Judge Vaughn WalkerRabbi Denise Eger said Judge Walker was playing the “have-it-both-ways” biblical King Solomon in his decision on Protect Marriage’s motion to stay his ruling halting enforcement of Prop 8 – both permanently lifting the stay and re-imposing a stay for another six days.

In his decision last week, Walker wrote that “Proposition 8 harms the people of California,” and that “[n]one of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED.”

No wonder Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson and others thought the stay was lifted. For 10 pages of his 11-page ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker talks about how the proponents of Prop 8 failed to satisfy any of the legal imperatives to warrant a stay.

So why did Walker throw in this temporary, six day, limited stay to give the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider all aspects of the issue? These aspects include whether or not the defendant-interveners have standing to bring an appeal, since the 9th Circuit has stricter standards for “standing” than does the lower court. Walker already got called on the carpet by the US Supreme Court when he wanted to broadcast the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial: the high court said he over-stepped his bounds. So now he doesn’t want to anger the 9th Circuit or further annoy the nine Supremes?

Intellectually, I get it. Temporary stay. No big deal. Unless, of course, it does turn out to be a big deal.

Perhaps because I still have not recovered from a decade of constant loss during the AIDS crisis; perhaps because I’m tired of rebutting the heterosexual assumption by having to come out over and over and over again; perhaps because I am apoplectic that “freedom” and “equality” have been reduced to campaign slogans while Democratic politicians promise that second-class citizenship for LGBTs in America is only a temporary political necessity. It’s just a matter of time.

Six days. No problem. It’s just a matter of time. It wasn’t until I got home when my disappointment and sadness turned into anger.

I flashed back to a briefing on Tuesday night by researcher David Fleischer,who pointed out in his Prop 8 Report that we lost because people who had been “with us,” such as women and Democrats, switched to the Yes on 8 side in the last weeks of the campaign primarily because of the ads posulating that “children” would be forced to learn about the nasty gays. Perry attorneys Ted Olsen and David Boies presented plenty of evidence at trial that these ads were motivated by animus toward LGBTs.

David Fleischer
David Fleischer
David Fleischer Prop 8 Report

And Walker agreed, writing that “[m]oral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. He cited the groundbreaking Romer v. Evans decision: “‘[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.'”

Wrote Walker: “Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Beautiful. Prop 8 is unconstitutional. And further, “[b]ecause the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change….”

Judge Vaughn Walker
Judge Vaughn Walker
Gay Marriage Federal Video

In the “Remedy” section of his Perry ruling, Walker writes that same sex couples “will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result … moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

But here’s the thing: just as women and Democrats– who knew Prop 8 discriminated against gays– voted for Prop 8 anyway, so, too, did Judge Walker seemingly suspend his reasoning. He knows that the continued enforcement of Prop 8 is unconstitutional and harmful to gays – but that’s OK for another six days.

In last week’s ruling, Walker concludes that “the trial record left no doubt that Proposition 8 inflicts harm on plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California. … Any stay would serve only to delay plaintiffs access to the remedy to which they have shown they are entitled. 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.”

Prop 8 proponents filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit for an emergency stay, the Mercury News reported, “arguing that it is ‘imperative’ for the court to freeze Walker’s order ‘to avoid confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages.’” They’re concerned that lifting the stay might cause “harm” to those same sex couples whose marriages might be voided by the US Supreme Court like marriages were in 2004. These new married couples would be different from the approximately 18,000 couples married before the passage of Prop 8 because the California Supreme Court upheld those marriages as valid, even while ruling that Prop 8 was constitutional. Marriages under Walker’s ruling risk being voided if Walker’s ruling is overturned.

Let me hit the pause button here and refer you to a good analysis by Brian Devine with links to further assessments on what’s next from NCLR’s Shannon Minter and MetroWeekly’s Chris Geidner.

What I’m angry about, frankly, is how in both the Prop 8 ruling and in Walker’s “Solomonic” motion lifting the stay he talks about how Prop 8 harmed gay couples. But suddenly, with the temporary stay, the issue of “harm,” indeed of “irreparable harm” shifts to the Prop 8 proponents and “harm” to gays evaporates.

I was struck by this during a radio interview with Warren Olney on KCRW. My job as the LGBT guest was to describe the emotional reaction to the stay. Most mainstream LGBTs applauded Walker’s ruling because of the larger point about denying the Prop 8 proponents their motion to stay his ruling permanently. I concurred that this was a big deal – but then laughed at the irony that it was the Prop 8 backers who were now so worried about the potential “harm” done to same sex couples if they were allowed to marry. But then I described how real harm was just done to the hurt and disappointed couples who wanted to marry immediately but were suddenly told to wait six-days.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC-Irvine law school, was also a guest on the show. He pointed out that Walker suggested the defendant-interveners now had the difficult task of proving how they would be “irreparably harmed” if Prop 8 was stayed. The only harm the defendant-interveners would suffer, he said, would be an ideological one.

Olney made a distinction between the legal “irreparable harm” and the mere sadness gays would have to endure for six days. Olney, however, took my point and asked the other guest, Greg Mitchell at the Recorder in San Francisco about the reaction from couples there. Mitchell concurred with me – lots of disappointment and hurt.

This is not abstract. The LA Weekly interviewed 25-year-old Amanda Pentacost, who had hoped to marry her partner Thursday: “It’s a bitter sweet victory,” Pentacost said. “It’s hard to wait six days not knowing what’s going to happen.”

But as I thought about how easily this emotional roller coaster was dismissed I also noted that just days before the US Department of Education, at the behest of openly gay Kevin Jennings, held the first ever national summit on bullying. In his remarks, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that not only is bullying a national epidemic but:

“A powerful testament to the fact that bullying is not part of the natural order of things is that most people can remember, even decades later, the feeling of being bullied or bullying another individual. Or they may feel haunted by the memory of standing by while a friend or classmate was bullied.”

Like being bullied, these same sex couples who lined up to get married will never forget experiencing absolute joy one minute and near despondency the next. That is “irreparable harm” done knowingly, in the name of expediency, against gays and lesbians who must once again endure what even some LGBTs think is merely benign discrimination. Six days. It’s just a matter of time.

Perhaps I’m angry because I’m keenly aware that time is running out for me to be free and equal.


  • 1. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Subscribing. Only 26 messages in my inbox, but I'm sure you all are going to fix that.

  • 2. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Angry? Wow…

  • 3. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:44 am

    It seems to me that the coverage of Prop 8 has always glossed over the harm the law does to gay people. To me, the real harm of Prop 8 is that it enforces the stigmatization of gay people as something less than human that doesn't deserve equal rights. That hurts all gay people, even the ones who don't want to marry (like me). One positive thing about the stay is that it gave the plantiffs' lawyers an opportunity to clearly articulate on the record that gay people are harmed by the stay.

  • 4. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:48 am

    And that sudden shift from ecstasy to depression was not only felt in California. I am trying to remain calm about this here in North Carolina, but I am still going "up, down, all around, like a roller coaster," to quote a Partridge Family song.

  • 5. Jp  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:55 am

    While you may be angry, keep in mind that this was done in reverence to a higher court which we need so deeply to be in our favor. It may be politics, but we don't have a choice right now but to allow the game to continue. As long as we are playing the game right, and I think we are, we have high hopes for being on the winning side. But, what I hear you saying, is that it sucks that we have to play the game, because it causes harm. I get that, but don't lose it just yet!!! I have great hope!!!

  • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Please, I need more Emails Sir, I really do.

  • 7. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:08 am

    I thought the statement, "to avoid confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages" was in regard to those supporting P8.

    Are you sure the statement is about possible harm to SS couples who get married, if their marriage might later be voided?

    If SS couples in CA are allowed to get married and then the SCOTUS overturns this decision later, that doesn't require that the marriages would be voided. If those would be ruled void, why wouldn't they say the same about the 18,000 marriages from 2008?

  • 8. AndrewPDX  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:10 am


  • 9. Ray  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Hi Karen, I understand you are angry with Walker for lifting his stay then putting it back on.

    But what he did was speed things up. His first stay prevented his own clerk of court from entering his order into the record. So, there was nothing in the record to appeal and nothing in effect.

    Now there is a legal order in the record, and the case has shifted over to the Ninth Circuit. If he had not given them a week to take over the case – which is now out of his hands – it would indeed have been quite rude.

  • 10. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Of course the idea that P8 supporters are somehow injured by gay couples getting married is just stupid, but it's something anti gay people say all the time. They are harmed, their kids are harmed, everyone is harmed if Josh and Aaron can get married, or so they try to convince everyone.

    I'm most angry at grops like nom and the 7 mil people who voted for this crap.

  • 11. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:24 am

    MN governor Pawlenty: Boot Pro Gay Judges

    My favorite part of the short article, "…failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa…"

    But now he's doing this:…

  • 12. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:32 am

    The plaintiffs' lawyers address this issue directly in their response to the motion to stay. "Fox guarding the henhouse" is how they describe it.

  • 13. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:33 am

    I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation from the right of how a straight judge deciding this case would somehow be free of bias.

  • 14. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Because he would have ruled in favor of the NOMbies!

  • 15. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Yea, so the bias would go their way, and that's ok.

    What about the orientation of all the judges of the MA and IA supreme courts? nom wouldn't bring that up since it would show that judges can and do rule impartially for the most part, as did Judge Walker.

  • 16. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:54 am

    This is a good comment regarding Vander Plaats, "…he's a nitwit who doesn't understand that we have Judges who follow the law, not the will of the people. Politicians fall to the will of the people."

    at this article:

  • 17. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Apparently religious conservatives believe that any ruling that protects the constitutional rights of gay people is inherently biased.

    And their assertion that Judge Walker is gay is based solely on hearsay. The source for their assertion is a rumor published by the San Francisco Chronicle, a conservative newspaper with low journalistic standards that ought to know better than to publish rumor as fact. Judge Walker himself has never made a public statement about his sexual orientation.

  • 18. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Nothing–yet–has felt worse than the night Prop 8 won. Waiting a week, a month, a year for this to play out is nothing compared to the feeling I had watching those commercials promoting Prop 8. And I'm probably older than most people here, and time is shorter for me and my partner, but I can wait for this to play out in the courts.

    The exhilaration I got in hearing the case (albeit second hand through the heroic work of people on this site) laid out before Judge Walker and then the breadth of his ruling…I can wait. I'm emboldened by this case, and it may not be the last one we need (clearly), but it's such a sound beginning. There's lots of frustration ahead, but we're in great company with this legal team and this decision. I can remember what it felt like NOT to have it…just a week ago. So patience is a virtue, and there's lots of other work to be done while we wait.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:02 am

    R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means to me.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:05 am

    The Florida adoption ban

    Navigating Florida's Adoption Ban

  • 21. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Subscribe me, please.

  • 22. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:08 am

    MJFargo, I am 47, my husband will be 63 in November. So time is short for us also. We met too late in life to be able to think about our 50th anniversary, but we would like to have as many of them as we can. For me, it is the constant roller coaster that is wearying. And I am in NC. I can only imagine what everyone is California is ding in order to make it through.

  • 23. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Karen, when I read your article it was like watching a knife stabbing (one more delay) into an innocent victim (GLBTs). I understand and feel your pain. Hang onto your pain and don't let it go, don't let it go until Gender Neutral marriages are being solomized, then you can let it go but don't forget it.

    There are many more battles ahead. Don't be like Alveda King, I got my civil rights, now I am going to close the door on anybody else's. Remeber the outrage and anger you feel now, remember it until the day throughout the United States of America that ALL Persons have the Freedom to Marry whom they choose. When this right can not be reversed, then and only then, you should let it go.

  • 24. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Okay, let's try with this code:

    [youtube =]

  • 25. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:12 am

    And here goes mine fillimg up again — I've been reading you regularly, but haven't been commenting for months.

  • 26. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:12 am


  • 27. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:13 am

    [youtube =]

  • 28. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Don't worry about it, Richard. I've just started subscribing with music lyrics. :)

  • 29. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Thanks, Kathleen. But I was really hoping to do something to brighten everybody's day, and this is three different embed codes from two different videos of the same song today that have failed.

  • 30. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Well, since it won't embed with the original, let's see if it like Reba better:

    [youtube =]

  • 31. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:20 am


  • 32. Hi  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Harmed. Excuse me. I fail to see how people who choose to go against a natural way of living are harmed. When you choose a lifestyle that goes against natural law. Expect it. As human beings we are created to procreate. Just like all mammals. How are you supposed to do that with the same sex organs. If it were meant to be that way it would have started that way. All harm on gays is self inflicted. It's a choice. Leave marriage alone. Want rights. Want equality. Be heterosexual. Like you were created to be.

  • 33. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Are you here to rant and tell gay people they're not allowed in your special little club, or do you genuinely want to understand? If you genuinely want to understand, please define "natural."

    Otherwise, I will go about my married gay day like usual — pay bills, walk the dogs, sip coffee and read the morning paper, all in my unnatural way.

  • 34. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Well, hello, there, troll. Guess you forgot about all of the peer-reviewed studies that have proven that we are born this way. But then, you must be one of the NOM sheeple who does not know how to think for himself, but can only parrot what they tell you and you listen to their lies and all of their fear tactics, rather than actually getting to know what the truth is. I bet you even listen to their misinterpretations of the bible, and go along with the mistranslations that they are using; the very mistranslations that were done by very misogynistic homophobes who did not want people to know that they themselves had been born gay.

  • 35. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Sagesse- That was a really nice article. I wish my son and his husband would give us grandchildren. I'm going to send him the link to this article. Thank you.

  • 36. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Well, we'll see you in the "court of natural law" when that gets organized. Right now, we're in Federal Court and so far are happy with how it's goin'.

  • 37. Frank  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Ok, this is off topic but it's driving me nuts. There is a nom tour tracker pic, I beleive from the Harrisburg rally, of what looks like 3 goons in beige sportcoats, holding a banner, wearing red sashes with some sort of gold symbol on it. Does anybody know what organization they represent?

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:31 am

    It is a Catholic group Called Defense of Family, Tradition, and Property. I guess they are Wannabe Knights of Columbus.

  • 39. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:32 am

  • 40. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Very sad, i can't read all the emails this morning, i have to go to a meeting – but at least I can get this video working for Richard.

  • 41. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Thanks, LLB!

  • 42. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:35 am


    109. Dave in ME | August 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I see that the hardcore Catholic American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property was there.

    They are the ones that wear red sashes-quite snazzy. There were out at Bangor Home Depot last year with their “Honk if you support traditional marriage” signs. I mean, really! Home Depot?

    Check them out:


  • 43. Shelly & Simie  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:38 am

    After reading all of your posts I kind of understand a temporary stay but six days is to me rediculus!!! Like maybe three days to let the couples plan their weddings and for the government offices obtain the marriage license's for same sex marriages. But, the bad part that we are now thinking of is that these 6 days are giving the prop 8 lawyers to try to find a way to make judge walkers decission reversable by some law somewhere!!! Talk about scary!!! I think also Judge walker has to please the prop 8's somehow because they threatened to have him impeached saying that he is gay and can not rule on this case. By the prop 8's having to go to nith cercit then that way the prop 8 people cant intimadate those judges i hope. If these courts finally see that judge walker is right and make it so the federal gov has to recognize all marriages so then a ssp can mary an immigrant and sponsor them as their federal legal spouse to end binational glbt issues. Hopefully this can be done within the next yr.

  • 44. Frank  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Thanks guy!

  • 45. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    tears running down my cheeks
    Belly laughing
    Just laughing away tyring to type and that's hard
    Great Diss, masterful even.

  • 46. Rightthingtodo TX  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:49 am

    RAW – admired your passion and intelligence from afar reading your comments here on P8TT.

    Love your response here…what do the "kids" say these days…PWND!

    Peace and love to you and your soon to be husband. Hopefully with tax breaks, ss benes, etc!

  • 47. Hi  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Oh. Born. That way. Hmmm. How are gays born to like the same sex. I've read and I've researched it. But found it all laughable. And unofficial. Bottom line. If it were meant to be you'd be equipped to procreate and live like intended. Without criticism. Go against the natural way of things. Guess what. Your going to get people who embrace knowing who they are and how they were created to defend the natural way of life. Including marraige. And i meant Natural in definition meaning sexually oriented. Same sex relationship or sex isnt a natural way of life. Not natural way of doing things.

  • 48. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:50 am

    I tend to think the 6-day stay is about having all the bases covered. Notice that in his ruling Judge Walker hit every possible angle presented in trial why Prop 8 is unconstitutional, rather than the typical easy-road ruling we so often see that leaves loose threads and multiple possible avenues for the appeal to win. This would be consistent, right?

    Judge Walker knew he'd take quite a hit from supporters of either side no matter what his ruling was, and maybe even foresaw the calls for his own impeachment. I sincerely hope that this 6-day stay is more level-headed rationality aimed at his ruling and opinion being taken more seriously by 9th circuit and SCOTUS.

  • 49. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Which remindes me we have been all caught up in the verdict and stay and documents and counter documents that we have not said Hi to Louis or Brian or Maggie Lately.

    Hi Louis, sucks being a bus driver on a humiliating road show that no one shows up to doesn't it?

    Hi Brian S Brown the Biggest Bigot in America, your pathetic tour is almost done. Heads up- I would wear my raincoat in DC, they might be throwing rotten tomatoes at you.

    Hi Maggie Gallagher the Hater in Chief for the United States. How does it feel to get your *ss wipped in court?

  • 50. Hi  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Vote YES on PROP 8

  • 51. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Well bless your heart.

  • 52. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:56 am

    @Hi: then answer These questions, and don't rely on the trash you have been force-fed in your Fred Phelpsian world.

    When did you choose to be straight?
    When did you choose your eye color?
    When did you choose to be left-handed or right-handed?
    When did you choose to be willfully ignorant of legitimate peer-reviewed scientific studies, simply because they did not agree with you?

  • 53. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:58 am

    @ Trish: I would say "Bless your heart," Except he has made it quite obvious that he does not have one.

  • 54. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Well, in the plantiffs' lawyers' response to the motion to stay, they ask for an accelerated schedule if the Ninth Circuit choose to grant the proponents standing to appeal based on your reasoning. They very eloquently state that each day that passes is a day lost for people harmed by being denied access to a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

  • 55. Hanou  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I feel the frustration too, but I think that a big part of it comes from the fact that the court seems stuck in the 1900s when it comes to announcing the decisions, leaving those of us anxiously waiting to twist in the winds of rumors and incomplete and inaccurate reporting. Hopefully we can see an update to how courts report decisions come out of this so that there will be fewer rumors, and more accuracy in reports.

  • 56. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Let's put in a call for Fiona, she is good at this sort of thing.

    Hi- did you ever notice how many straight people, oops "natural" people see blatant discrimination against galy lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people?

    Judge Walker said "DISCRIMINATION" 59 times in a 138 page document. What you are practicing is plain old vanilla Discrimination. Do you have a white robe wiht a hood also?

  • 57. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I wish you were my mother.

  • 58. Trish  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:02 am

    You didn't give a definition of natural. Here, let me help your poor little brain:

    Natural — existing in or formed by nature.

    Hmm… so if homosexuality exists in nature, that means it's natural. Like the gay penguins. Or the lesbian birds in Hawaii. Or the Bonobo monkeys. Or humans.

    WOW! Doesn't that just blow your mind?

    Oh, and since you brought up natural, you can't then turn around and say "But we're not animals!" because either we're talking about nature or we're talking about civilization — and it isn't very civilized to be bigoted.

  • 59. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:03 am

    "Your going to get people who embrace knowing who they are and how they were created to defend the natural way of life." I know I shouldn't take the bait, but defend against WHAT? Just how exactly is your alleged "natural way of life" threatened, upset or in any way harmed by granting gay people equal access to marriage? Your side wasn't able to prove any harm during the case. Your asserting harm doesn't make it true.

  • 60. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:04 am

    You Idiot, the Initiative is long over it was in 2008. No way to vote on it now.
    Question for you. How old are you, truthfully, how old are you?

  • 61. Hanou  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:05 am

    @Trish: Don't forget dolphins!

  • 62. Hanou  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Oh hey, wikipedia has a long list!

  • 63. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Apparently not old enough to have a functioning brain.

  • 64. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Yeah, I'm going to say 14 or 15! Probably failed grammar, not to mention critical thinking.

  • 65. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Part of my frustration comes from my suspicion that the Ninth Circuit, despite the evidence and ruling and motions filed, will do everything possible to give the proponents a break. And that's because I believe that overall the courts in the U.S. have a bias against gay people. And I believe that because I believe that overall the U.S. has a bias against gay people.

  • 66. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:27 am

    You got that right! My daughter and her wife who live in Discriminitory Virginia lost out on an $8,000 tax credit when they bought their house. If they could have combined incomes they would have gotten the $8,000 but it turned out that only my daughter in law got the mortgage (deed is in both names) and she was higher than the permitted theshold by a single person. So right there my daughter and her spouce lsot out on $8,000. No small chunk of change. I would like an additional $8,000 wouldn't you?

  • 67. hanoumatoi  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:32 am

    There certainly is a lot of animus to overcome. Lots of people have the "squick" reaction when discussing the subject, and that's a difficult thing to get past to have a discussion on the merits. Hopefully we can just seize all the teachable moments we find, and get people over to the side of freedom one at a time.

  • 68. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:35 am

    I agree with you a little bit. I think Courts are inclinded to maintain the status quo. After all if you don't, you are making Landmark decisions that higher courts can over turn making you look silly, so generally I think they are cautious about changing the status quo. Obviously the Status quo is Discrimination against GLBT people. And yes it takes longer to type out the word Discrimination than the word Equality but folks every once in a while can you make the effort?

    It was like taking a nice soapy shower and getting clean, reading Judge Walkers decision. All the mud that has been thrown on this community undeservedly for years, was washed away, we stepped out clean.

  • 69. HunterR.  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Well, all this back and forth is giving me a headache, isn't that real pain? 😉
    But seriously this whole prop 8 thing has been a moving target from the beginning and continuously morphs its ugly head.
    Probably some of you have seen this article that reflects my feelings, thank you all for all the comments.

    "Simple question: If a trial court judge grants standing to someone as a defendant, how can that standing then be stripped to deny them an appeal?

    And if the answer is that the defendant never should have had standing in the first place, doesn’t that mean the trial never should have been held? "

  • 70. Raymond Fernandez  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:39 am

    here's a link to an article about the 9th and how they will be meeting it's rather funny i thought i should pass it along maybe the trackers want to post it.

  • 71. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Let's say it all again everyone:


    Make no mistake, people: Their "final solution" to the "queer question" is our complete and total extermination.

  • 72. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:42 am

    There is a difference between intervention and standing. Intervention doesn't grant you Article III standing.

  • 73. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:45 am

    If marriage is only about 'procreation' or 'potential procreation' should we deny women who are beyond child-bearing age the right to marry?

  • 74. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Isn't this the same silliness the Catholic church uses to tell straight couples they can't use birth control?

  • 75. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:55 am

    MJFargo, LOL. I'm picturing her God being cross-examined by David Boies. If her God's 'word' is really as internally contradictory as all the representations of it I've ever seen, I'm putting my money on Boies.

  • 76. Josh  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:56 am

    It's amusing how so many people for P8 think they have all the answers on how to defend it. Don't they realize that their lawyers tried their best and tried to bring all these tired arguments to the trial, but it's all been smacked down?

    I'm sure this Hi character has such a brilliant argument but somehow the P8 defenders just missed it. Gosh, he better contact the ADF ASAP!

  • 77. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Priceless, indeed.

    My question is, are all judges poor overworked clerks in Hawaii with them while they shuffle all this paper over the weekend, or did the poor souls have to stay home?

  • 78. OldCoastie  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:03 am



    roller coaster?


    But there was political strategy in the 6 day extension of the stay. I'm going to trust Judge Walker.

    It is going to all work out – just you wait and see…

    And it's not going to take very long.

  • 79. Tracy  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Six days, in the scheme of stays, is actually quite a short time. I look at this as a nod to the Ninth Circuit to show due respect, but it is also a message; "I've made my decision, and it's a no-brainer – but out of respect for the higher court, I am allowing a nominal amount of time for you to concur with my finding before the stay is officially lifted".

    I can only imagine the disappointment that all the couples waiting to marry felt; I truly understand the pain of having to wait. But as painful as it may be, try not to misunderstand Judge Walker's ruling as a rebuke, or as deliberate harm. If he were truly an "activist judge" trying to advance his own agenda, he might have misused his power to short circuit the Ninth circuit …. but he isn't. He is a reputable jurist handling justice in a responsible and thoughtful way …. to achieve true justice.

  • 80. Cat  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:05 am

    I was a bit confused about this point too. Why can you intervene, but not appeal? (I'm thinking about logical reasons, not legal reasons). A reason I can think of is that the plaintiffs started a case, and the intervenors stepped in to defend. An appeal is a new step, which the defendants (the State) must take. The intervenors have had their chance, and have no right to appeal. The higher you go in the courts, the more you are scrutinized. Something like that. I haven't convinced myself though.

    It does seem to create the situation where a proposition proponent cannot appeal a lower court decision, unless they put the legal responsibility to defend it in the proposition. As the plaintiffs point out, Prop8 did not do that. I guess from now on people will put that in their proposition, as some have already done.

  • 81. Tracy  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:06 am

    That is, Judge Walker has every confidence that the Ninth Circuit will concur — and the rights of LGBTs are so much more secure with that concurrence than without.

  • 82. physicalist  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:08 am

    I find that very interesting, and makes me wonder about the following:

    Is it allowed, or discouraged, or encouraged, for judges to discuss a case with the judges to whom the decision would be appealed? I can imagine arguments for both sides.

  • 83. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:09 am

    And is it true that when the 9th concurs, that will have an impact on all the other states in the 9th circuit?

  • 84. Kate  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:12 am

    But please don't compare them to nice animals like pigs…..

  • 85. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:16 am

    HI Shelly & Simie,

    This stay wasn't issued as a way to allow the state and county agencies a chance to get ready for marriages, it was issued specifically to allow Proponents to make a case for a stay to the higher courts. But I assure you this temporary stay has nothing to do with Walker trying to "please the Prop 8ers" or fear of their call for his impeachment. This is more a way of showing respect for the legal process, of which he is just a part, and respect for the higher courts who will possibly be reviewing his decision.

    Prior to the decision, the general opinion from almost every legal analyst I've encountered, was always that the decision would be stayed throughout the entire appeals process – all the way through the Supreme Court (if it winds up there). It was only after seeing how sweeping a condemnation of Prop 8 the decision is and how one-sided the evidence was in favor of striking it down, that people began to think there was a chance that a stay pending appeal, would not be granted.

    I just felt compelled to speak out against any suggestion that Walker's behavior is a sign of 'caving' to Proponents or that it is fear for his job that motivated his actions.

  • 86. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I think there is a question as to whether the judge should have permitted intervention in a case the state — who were the defendants in the lawsuit — refused to defend. He didn't have to do that. Initiative supporters aren't automatically granted the right to defend an initiative if it is challenged in court. So I suppose the judge could have thrown out Prop 8 without a trial. He explained why he chose to allow a party to intervene — don't have his statement handy, though.

  • 87. Tracy  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:18 am

    I believe that it could within that limited venue, only from the standpoint allowed by the 9th circuit decision. If the 9th circuit allows an appeal and then rules against Proponents, that would carry greater weight than simply ruling that Proponents have no standing to appeal and lifting the stay.

    Either way, only the Supreme Court can impact the entire nation — and if the 9th circuit rules no Article III standing to appeal, we won't get there. On the other hand, if justice must be handed out piecemeal throughout the nation, perhaps it is best that it starts here and now.

  • 88. Tracy  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Understand that I am no expert — I have a strong interest and research the law, but I am not a lawyer. With that in mind, please see my response below.

  • 89. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Part (maybe the primary?) reason that the City and County of San Francisco was permitted to be a Plaintiff-Intervenor was to show the harm that this law does to government entities.

  • 90. Break the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:24 am

    I think Mr. Hi has a point. Human beings were not created to fly through the atmosphere, as evidenced by the obvious lack of wings in our creator's design for us, so when we suffer the by-default self-inflicted consequences incurred in a plane crash, we should have not flown in the first place, and simply expected to be harmed when engaging in an obviously unnatural lifestyle choice such as flying through the sky in a big machine.

    Same goes for many things eg. moving at faster-than humanly capable speeds in/on motor vehicles, eating and drinking most of what people eat and drink these days, scuba diving, walking upright (think of all the back pain we'd be spared sans that silly choice!

    On the other hand, if we have a creator, it's design of our spine, not to mention crisscrossed food and air ways, among other issues, just needs to be taken as one of the mysteries of it's incomprehensible to the mind of mankind ways or abysmally poor engineering skills.)

    At any rate, the list of self-harming life choices goes on and on. Shape up people! We got natural livin' to do!

  • 91. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:25 am

    I was a bit confused about this point too. Why can you intervene, but not appeal? (I’m thinking about logical reasons, not legal reasons). A reason I can think of is that the plaintiffs started a case, and the intervenors stepped in to defend. An appeal is a new step, which the defendants (the State) must take. The intervenors have had their chance, and have no right to appeal. The higher you go in the courts, the more you are scrutinized. Something like that. I haven’t convinced myself though.

    Logic and legal thinking do not usually go together. It is a complex interaction between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Supreme Court procedure, and case law interpretations on Article III standing.

  • 92. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I suspect in the 2008 CA Supreme Court decision, it was to allow time for the bureaucracies that handle marriage licenses and registrations to bring their systems in compliance with the ruling. Bureaucracies are slow moving beasts.

  • 93. JefferyK  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:29 am

    OMG, that's exactly how I felt after I read the ruling. I was like, finally, someone has told it like it is. And no matter what the final outcome of this particular case is, that ruling is on the record, which bodes well for full equality for gay people some day, I think. I suppose this is one reason why the ruling freaked out religious conservatives so much.

  • 94. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Well, I'm guessing you DID vote yes on Prop 8. Sadly, California has a political system that allows the majority to vote on the fundamental rights of a minority. But thankfully, for all of us (for you, too, even if you don't realize it) we have system of government that gives us recourse when that happens.

    In short, you had your chance to vote. Now we're going to see if the law you voted in is in violation of the US Constitution. So far, the answer is yes.

    Isn't America grand?

  • 95. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Hanou, I'm not sure what part of the reporting of the decision you're talking about? In what way could the court have reported it differently to avoid the rumors you're talking about? If anything, it seems the ready availability of rapid communication through things like Twitter, facebook, live media report, blackberries, etc., is what led to the initial misleading rumors.

  • 96. Tracy  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:40 am

    With all due respect, Gray Coyote, you have MANY (perhaps MOST?) Americans on your side. We are all Americans, sexual orientation aside, and we all are due the benefits from the ideology espoused by our founding fathers.

    Can you imagine the excitement and burden they must have felt in creating a new nation? They had a blank slate to instantiate a dream they had …. their goal was to enable liberty and equal justice for ALL. A nation that would serve as a beacon of hope, liberty, and happiness for all people, no matter their personal status. I am sure they imagined that the oppressed peoples of the world would flock to our shores.

    Unfortunately, their limited experience with persecution meant that they could not imagine all possible circumstances under which equal justice might be denied. At that point in time, sexual orientation (as acknowledged Prop 8 trial testimony – Days 2-3) had not even been defined as a class …. homosexuality might have been understood as a behavior, but not as a human characteristic. Today's sophistication in the social sciences has thankfully clarified that point.

    In recognition of their myopic perspective, they allowed for the constitution to be modified, via the amendment process, to accommodate future complications regarding the liberties it was supposed to protect.

    Many say that the founding fathers never intended for same-sex marriage to be lawful in this nation. The truth is, they probably never thought of it. If they did, their personal viewpoints on that issue might well have been tainted by the preconceptions of the day …. regardless, we know that they intended religion – and its constitutionally protected biases – to play no part in our federal government.

    In short, America, as it was designed, supports the rights of homosexuals to marry. Whether we — as flawed human beings — can realize / instantiate that America, is our current battle.

  • 97. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:41 am

    But please don’t compare them to nice animals like pigs…..

    Good point. Remember the whole "sexist pig" mantra.

  • 98. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Not on the stay. Only a decision on the merits can effect the whole 9th Circuit.

  • 99. Straight Grandmother  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Priceless! I wish I could insert one of those Smiley Faces with the big teeth in a grin right here.

  • 100. draNgNon  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:49 am

    hi Kathleen

    do the higher courts actually review constitutional decisions by the lower courts? I thought that when they got appealed, the conclusions of law were effectively tossed, and they re-decided on first principles and existing precendent (and the lower court's findings of fact, if any).

  • 101. Breaking the Silence  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Honestly…The frustration that must be suffered by people hung-up on the idea that sexual activity is only really ok when it's for procreative purposes must be astonishing.

    No wonder they have so much negativity to turn on people who live free of such notions. Vast oceans of this negativity simply must be created by the guilt over occurrences of non-procreative sexual activity and/or by the sheer frustration of denying one's sexuality but for attempts at procreation.

  • 102. JonT  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Send in the clones….

  • 103. draNgNon  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:01 am

    TBH I actually think City of SF did not do that great a job on that aspect. they took the tack that the stigma led to more people on health rolls needing public assistance/mental health, as opposed to the lack of marriage led to more people having no health insurance at all becuase their employed and yet unmarried partner could not afford the ginormous tax hit.

    IIRC San Francisco requires companies in its jurisdiction to provide DP benefits but even if they do it's considered a taxable benefit, and the tax hit is on the value of the policy, not the cost of the premiums.

    ah well. it's a sore point with me, long ago I was working as a W2 employee with a partner who had a 1099 contract, we looked into getting her on my health plan and it was just too much money. and, if it's too much money for people who are well-paid… anyhow, my point is, that is a significant tangible harm.

    moreover this can be demonstrated to harm the straight married couples as well; it shrinks the available pool of insured, etc, it also means more uninsured people making use of emergency room care, driving up health costs for *everyone*… they just left that out entirely.

    and much as I respect everyone here's point of view, in my personal life the only reason I know of for any same sex couple (and many opposite sex couples) I know to get married, is health care benefits and visitation rights/medical power of attorney. people I know who are committed for life simply don't need a license from the government to make their commitment real. it's always coming down to that – tangible benefits as relate to health care – when it comes down to a discussion of acknowledging the relationship legally.

  • 104. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Either way, only the Supreme Court can impact the entire nation — and if the 9th circuit rules no Article III standing to appeal, we won’t get there. On the other hand, if justice must be handed out piecemeal throughout the nation, perhaps it is best that it starts here and now.

    Canada went through this between 2001 to 2005. They had to file suits against federal marriage statutes via the federal court systems up there. Once it got up to the Ontario Court of Appeals, and they started tossing out the statute, the Canadian government stopped appealing and eventually they passed a marriage statute to comply with the Pronvincial Court of Appeals decisions.

    The Provinces up there are not considered states of a union. They are creations of the federal government of Canada that was passed on to the government by Britain.

    The American process is going to be slightly more difficult, to say the least. Luckily for AFER, there's plenty of targets, especially states that have the seperate but equal institutions (NV, WA, OR, NJ).

  • 105. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Hello, OldCoastie! Long time no see! Glad to have you back. BTW, does your moniker indicate that you are a veteran of the USCG?

  • 106. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Plus, the higher up in the federal court system this decision goes and is affirmed, the more binding the precedent is, and the stronger it is when other cases in other jurisdictions are brought forth.

  • 107. OldCoastie  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Hi Richard –

    Yes, the moniker DOES indicate the Coast Guard… of many, many years ago…

    I've never posted previously to this particular, but I'm glad you missed me anyway!


  • 108. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:19 am

    And if we are really going to live the natural life, then we should all begin going about our daily lives naked, as none of us are born wearing clothing. Of course, there is no way that I could go naked outside of my own home, because I really don't want to frighten people. (Well, maybe BB, MG, and LJM, but they don't really count as people, do they?)

  • 109. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:25 am

    And, contrary to popular belief, pigs are actually one of the cleanest animals on the planet. when they are rolling in mud, that is because it is their only means of cooling off, since they have neither pores nor sweat glands.

  • 110. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I haven't read all the motions and decisions on this question of the original intervention by Proponents, so I'm just basing this on information that has been reported by those who have.

    There is a difference between "permissive intervention" and "intervention as a right." The former is granted at the court's discretion, the latter requires that the party be allowed to intervene.

    I've read that Proponents were granted intervention as a right. I suppose it could be argued that Walker was incorrect in determining that they had a right, but Walker didn't give them a discretionary pass in order to intervene.

  • 111. RebeccaRGB  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Found out what it means to be gay
    Here, queer, here to stay

  • 112. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:46 am

    A lot of groundwork in the U.S. has been laid, but Judge Walker's ruling is beyond anything before it, and it'll either impress the judiciary or…. You have to start somewhere, and I can't imagine a better case than this. Since we in California had the right, and then voters took it away. It's just a perfect case to begin. [And I'm not trying to disparage all the cases across the Nation where so many have fought, but this one demonstrates everything we need.]

  • 113. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Wasn't "sockittome" Judy Carne's line on LaughIn?

  • 114. Kevin  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:54 am

    This is absolutely unbelievable. No doubt Walker was timing this just perfectly to coincide!

  • 115. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Very nice, MJFargo. Very nice, indeed.

    ::bows down in homage::

  • 116. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Kathleen, I think you're right. My guess is that each county had to get new forms written, submitted to the state office in charge of approving marriage forms ("Vital Statistics", I think, they're a named defendant), and then print up a supply, plus retrain personnel.

    It was 30 days, which at the time seemed fairly reasonable. People have planned weddings in shorter times, but 30 days is fairly quick.

  • 117. Ray  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:59 am

    @draNgNon – Higher courts very often produce a "summary judgement" which says the same thing more or less every time – "For the well determined reasons of the trial court, the desicion below is AFFIRMED". This means they leave every word of the lower court's decision in place.

    Generally if an appeals court is going to keep a decision they will do it on the same basis as the trial court. They can affirm for different reasons but it is generally not what they do.

  • 118. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 7:59 am

    "Review" in this context is just a general term that refers to a higher court's looking at the decision. It's true that, in reviewing it, the appeals court will come to its own independent conclusions of law, as if Walker had never made any such conclusions in his decision.

  • 119. AndrewPDX  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:21 am

    <cite>My dear boy, if God had intended for us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates.</cite> — Willy Wonka

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 120. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:23 am

    With all due respect, Gray Coyote, you have MANY (perhaps MOST?) Americans on your side. We are all Americans, sexual orientation aside, and we all are due the benefits from the ideology espoused by our founding fathers.

    Hetero-supremacists are the people who think that they as heterosexuals are superior to those of us who are not heterosexuals.

    I distinctly remember the open talk by my father, others in his circle of friends, and people with the United States government, that "HIV was the best thing that could have ever happened to America, as it would eventually "wipe out the gays", and when they were too small to matter, the government could "round them all up and exterminate them like vermin".

    Make no mistake: Anyone who doesn't respect our full equality both personally and politically has that kernel of mentality that we are not human beings, and would stand by if we had a "Norsefire"-style right wing government and they started to round us up and exterminate us.

    After we gain our equal rights under law, and when the DOMA constitutional amendments start going through Congress and possibly to the state legislatures, we'll really know who are friends really are. But they must be confronted with the reality of equality first. All we need is THIRTEEN STATES to block such an amendment, and we only need a pro-equality majority in one of the houses not just both in these states.

  • 121. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Kathleen, I read somewhere that the 'right to intervene' is a matter of California law, and that Walker's decision was straightforward and not particularly controversial.

    As usual, I wish I could remember 'where' I read these things.

  • 122. Ray  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Hi Glenn, There is a delay period between the time a decision is published and when it "goes final" to allow the loosing party an effective right to appeal.

    Sort of like what is going on here.

    If same-sex marriages were to resume without an orderly transfer of the case from Walker to the Ninth Circuit, then Proponents would wail that their due-process rights were being trampled, and it is very possible that the Ninth Circuit may have responded with an immediate 30-day stay.

    Instead, thanks to Walker, it's only 7 days.

    The right to an appeal is not valuable if it is not also effective.

  • 123. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Correct MJ. We have good team in AFER, GLAD, and Lambda Legal. AFER is great for California issues and specifically states where there is the existence of domestic partnerships (NV, WA, OR). Garden State Equality and Lambda is taking care of New Jersey.

    Even if Department of Justice refuses to appeal on DOMA, GLAD can refile DOMA cases now in Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and hopefully next year, Rhode Island. GLAD should also file a federal case against Maine with the assistance of AFER and get their DOMA statute struck down, using Question 1's advertisements and start dragging the Yes On 1's proponents (especially that d-bag Marc Mutty) into court.

  • 124. Sagesse  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Definitely Laugh In, but I think it was one of the guys….

  • 125. Ray  |  August 14, 2010 at 8:44 am

    The thing is that when you intervene, you intervene on behalf of somebody who has standing. Because that party already has standing, it is not an issue.

    Think of it as plugging your cell phone charger into someone else's electricity. No problem.

    But if the power is cut off by the landlord, you have no authority to get it turned back on.

    That is the relationship of an intervenor (the visitor) to the party actually being sued.

  • 126. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:17 am

    What are we all doing chatting on an internet forum?

    How unnatural is that???

    ::runs away screaming::

  • 127. hanoumatoi  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Well, what I mean is that so many peopler were getting their news 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand. Even the day of the original decision, when I was refreshing the court's site, I found out about the decision through other sources first. It just seems like there should have been a central site which said "Permanent stay denied, temporary stay till the 18th", along with the text of the decision.

  • 128. Ray in MA  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Exactly what erked me! I think it was Fox that first came out and declared him "openly gay". Obviuosly, they are pulling out anything to help their frail case.

  • 129. Bill  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I think people are overreacting regarding Judge Walker's 6 day temporary stay. It's short compared to the time from when Prop 8 passed to when Walker's decision was made, and such stays are probably standard – just enough time to allow a higher court to have its say if necessary.

    Also, they can't marry everyone who would like to be married in 6 days. According to… "Typically, the county clerk in San Francisco issues about 50 marriage licenses a day, and City Administrator Ed Lee, who oversees the operation, expects the number to triple if same-sex marriages resume." San Francisco is using the time to train more people in how to process marriage license forms, so the 6 days are not being wasted. Keep in mind that you don't want city workers sitting there twiddling their thumbs, so they aren't going to have lots of spare capacity for getting people through the system.

  • 130. Ray in MA  |  August 14, 2010 at 9:26 am

    I just use a You Tube link… it automatically embeds… only risk is that it is protected… but rarely.

  • 131. Rightthingtodo TX  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:49 am

    is that a first on p8tt

    a single "poster" getting pwnd twice in same thread

    MJF – luv ya

  • 132. Rightthingtodo TX  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:52 am

    "Vote YES on PROP 8"

    expected but still bewildering

    no actual reply to any of the facts/arguments presented here in response to any of his/her "claims"

    just rhetoric…sound bites…no facts

  • 133. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Here you go, Kathleen!


  • 134. MJFargo  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:16 am

    If this has been discussed, apologies: But with the Monday morning deadline, what can we expect? (1) Likely a judgment on the stay before Judge Walker's expiration [fine]; (2) an immediate appeal on the judgment for the stay for that to be appealed either by the full 9th (that's a question) or it goes right to the Supremes with another emergency request? SCOTUS acted promptly on the video taping issue; can we expect the same "prompt" ruling on a request for a stay?

    And more to the point, if on Monday or Tuesday, this "stay" panel says something like, "Intervenors don't have standing to request a stay" is that a good indication of how all that will play out? Do they have to address the matter of standing or can they just say, "Okay, lift it" and not address the matter of standing or the likelihood of the case be overturned?

  • 135. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:16 am

    What I was using were the YouTube embed codes.

  • 136. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:44 am

    It’s official:

    You’re a both a douche and a hetero-supremacist pig.

  • 137. draNgNon  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:45 am

    It blows me away that we talk of harms in terms of intangibles and feelings. There is demonstrable financial harm in the tax treatment for DPs vs married couples as well as in how health care benefits are governed. There is harm to the state and businesses – fiscal harm – in the administrative burden of maintaining parallel and NOT equal systems of benefits.

  • 138. Glenn I  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:48 am

    I didn’t understand why it took so long from the original California Supreme Court decision recognizing the fundamental right of people to get married to the first same sex marriages. It was more than a month, wasn’t it? You’d think there’d be some urgency considering fundamental rights are fundamental, not sort of whenever-it’s-convenient-for-the-bureaucracy.

  • 139. Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Again, I think it was all the 'instant news' methods available to us that were the problem.

    The court issued a written decision. If you go to the last page of that decision, it says very clearly that the stay pending appeal is denied, that the judge orders the judgment entered and the judgment stayed until Aug 18.

    The written decision was put online — both at the Court's website and through the PACER system — and at the same time, a hard copy was available to anyone who was physically present at the courthouse.

    From what I gather, someone started reporting, on social media (twitter, etc), that the stay pending appeal had been denied (true) without mentioning that the judgment was stayed for a week. This report then spread like wildfire, and also started coming in from some sources many people consider reliable, e.g., Freedom To Marry's Evan Wolfson.

    This led to some confusion and misinformation for a while, but I don't see how it was anything the court did.

  • 140. Wolf13  |  August 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    I apologize for appearing contentious and if you already realize my point. I do appreciate the work you guys are doing to support the cause, but I just wanted to chime in on this specific post about being angry.

    While I get that being disappointed for the 6 day stay is expected, it is actually a little offending to read that you (or anyone else) are angry.

    With the possibility of the appellate courts overturning everything (the stay, the case), you imply that the few hour window you may have gotten without the 6 day stay (before the 9th circuit came in) would be the only chance at equality for you. But what about the millions of others in other states and in California who wasn't one of the few hundred that managed to get the license before the appellate court came in to overturn? Would your marriage made in that short window really be equality for you?

    I'm just exceedingly happy how this case is turning out in the big picture, and wish for maximizing our chances through the appellate courts as much as possible (i.e. showing respect for the 9th circuit with a 6 day stay) so that real, definitive, equality is achieved for millions. As such, I have no empathy for this anger and hurt you are feeling (which is not comparable to bullying at all, since we're not children anymore and since Judge Walker is not trying to demean or "bully" us.)

  • 141. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    I not only do not understand the anger, i think it is a case of 'injustice collecting' in this particular case, and blinds people to the fact that the stay probably speeded things up immensely. The proponents would have applied for a stay had Judge Walker not given one, and the customary thing would have been to grant it — or SCOTUS could have equally granted one — in either case the marriages would have been delayed indefinitely.

    In this case, the stay was limited, discussed the question of standing in such a way that it will be difficult for the Appelate Court to find it for the proponents, and by setting a limit, probably ensured the Appellate Court would rule quickly, even before Judge Walker's stay expired — and might, on the question of standing, end the case right away.

    [Note, I haven't read beyond here, I assume someone else has made the same point much better.]

  • 142. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    If the 9th Circuit does nothing, the stay is lifted as of 8/18/2010 at 5PM. They will likely make a decision to stay on Tuesday, giving enough time to the Prop 8 Proponents to file a stay with Justice Kennedy and SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy himself can stay it temporarily for a full court referral, or he could refuse it.

  • 143. Gray Coyote  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Amen, Wolf13. Amen. I'm sorry, but it's difficult for me to feel anger when Judge Walker is doing everything he can to make sure that his ruling will stick during the appellate process.

  • 144. David H.  |  August 14, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Why the anger toward Judge Walker? Just because of this temporary 6 days stay? I feel sadden after reading this article. Please be positive and thankful. At this moment, I just feel thankful to Judge Walker for his ruling, and give us a solid chance for moving forward.

  • 145. MJFargo  |  August 15, 2010 at 1:47 am

    I guess (my poorly worded) point was: In considering the stay, will this panel who reviews the Emergency Motion and responses, consider "standing." Can it end right here if they say, "The DI's have no standing in this matter on appeal?" I understand THAT can be appealed, but if they say as much, it's my understanding the SCOTUS is less likely to get involved where the appellants don't have standing. So can we anticipate some clue after the Monday deadline when the panelists review the Emergency request and rule on it?

  • 146. MJFargo  |  August 15, 2010 at 1:53 am

    I see both sides. Emotions are high. People were waiting in line. They hear, "He's refusing the request to stay…" (YEAH!) and then "…but giving six more days for other courts to consider." (Boo!) While I don't see Judge Walker as a bully at all (he demonstrated infinite patience during the trial with the DI's behavior), adults bully other adults all the time. Institutions, particularly some religious ones, bully adults all the time. Prop 8 and it's campaign is one big example of bullying. However, I believe that California's Attorney General (who is emerging as a huge hero in all of this) won't suffer many more delays in this matter. [but I'm sometimes wrong :) ]

  • 147. Kathleen  |  August 15, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I suspect we'll get at least some discussion of Proponents' standing in the 9th Circuit's stay decision, as it impacts the "likely to succeed on the merits" part of the test for a stay. I also don't expect the discussion at this point in the proceedings to be the final word on the issue. But all this is a just a guess on my part.

    There are several things the 9th Circuit stay motion judges could do. They could grant the stay pending appeal before the Wed expiration of the current stay. They could issue a temporary stay (essentially extending the current deadline) to allow more time for the 9th to consider the stay pending appeal. They could deny the stay pending appeal, but issue a temporary stay to give the Proponents a longer window to appeal to the Supreme Court. Or they could just flat-out deny the stay, giving the Proponents a few days, at most, to take it up with the Supreme Court.

    Personally, I think the most likely scenarios involve extending this current deadline, at least for a short, to give more time for the 9th Circuit and/or the Supreme Court to reach a decision on a stay pending appeal. (but just speculation).

    As to the Supreme Court when/if this lands there, I expect them to act fairly quickly. Again, it will likely require some discussion of the standing issue, and again, it might not be the final word on the issue. I do know that, in general, the Supreme Court is reluctant to expand the category of parties that can qualify for standing.

    I probably didn't answer all your questions – not enough coffee yet to focus very well. But chances are any I didn't answer, I don't know the answer to anyway. At this point there are so many winding paths this case could follow that it's mostly speculation as to which it will.

  • 148. MJFargo  |  August 15, 2010 at 3:24 am

    The sincerest "broken record": Thank you, again, Kathleen.

  • 149. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 15, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Karen O: Welcome to the world of litigation and the court system, where everything does not run according to our schedule. Whatever the technical reason, I think it comes across as very gentlemanly for Judge Walker to leave the stay in place for a few days and direct the Prop H8ers to the 9th District for an opinion on it. (I like the tongue-in-cheek way he also suggests that time can be used by them to attempt to get the governor and state attorney general over to their side…!!!!!!!!!)

    The short stay helps counter-balance the cries about his being some rogue, "activist" judge. Hopefully, in the long run, this whole process will help repair some of the extreme animosity crashing between the 2 sides…the trial was fair, thorough and prudent, and Judge Walker is being thorough and prudent now.

  • 150. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 15, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Ditto. I believe he knows a bit more about the procedures of federal law than the rest of us : ) It's spectacular that we ended up in his fair-minded and well educated courtroom

  • 151. Gray Coyote  |  August 15, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Remember, Jerry Brown is running for Governor this year. The fact that he's taking a stand for us even with the potential of jeopardy to his political career says something to his character.

  • 152. Kathleen  |  August 15, 2010 at 10:16 am

    I've put in my name already as a volunteer.

  • 153. James Sweet  |  August 15, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    I think Walker's decision is understandable in the context of mutual respect and courtesy within the judiciary — and what that could lead to. Let's say that Walker had not issued the temporary stay to allow the 9th Circuit to decide whether they wanted to issue a stay. Now the 9th Circuit is rushed and under huge political pressure to do something, now. That could result in them recognizing standing and issuing a stay in a rush, when maybe in another scenario they would have rejected standing.

    That said, I do not think I could be so circumspect about it if it were an issue that affected me directly. You have every right to be angry. Far be it from me to tell an oppressed minority group to which I don't belong that, for strategic reasons, they need to be content with second-class citizenship for a few more days. Be angry, you have every reason to be.

  • 154. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Anger is such a strange word, and one I've mulled over in therapy for a loooong time. Anger can be a senseless reaction to simply not getting what we want, when we want it. Rather what, I daresay, a baby feels. And then it gets tricky, because it's healthy to be angry, and you don't want to take anger away from people, because unexpressed anger can get turned inward or turn into depression. (Just one theory, of course.) Hopefully, anger can be tempered by reason or understanding in some cases. Judge Walker hasn't done anything cruel or uncalled for. He is an expert in this field, and in case some haven't noticed, has a professional interest in seeing this case procedes on sound legal ground. For one thing, it doesn't make judges look so hot when their rulings are overturned, even on technical grounds.

  • 155. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Thank you, Carpool Kathleen. Something else about anger is that the anger itself is not what is harmful. It is what you do with that anger. Susan B. Anthony was angry that women were treated as second class citizens. What did she do? She worked toward gaining women's rights. MLK was angry that our AA citizens were being treated as second class citizens. What did he do? He mobilized folks to work toward gaining the rights that the AA citizens should have had long before. Harvey Milk was angry that we were being treated as second class citizens. What did he do? He built coalitions and showed people that we are every bit as human as they are, and helped extend the process that many regard as having begun at Stonewall. So, you are correct that we should not deny people their anger. We should however, help them examine that anger and find ways to use that anger fruitfully so that it becomes a motivator for constructive change rather than destructive.
    And in case I have not said so before–Welcome to the P8TT family!

  • 156. Tony  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Here's what I don't understand. This delay is largely procedural, and it's an acknowledgement that the case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit and possibly to the Supreme Court. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Judge Walker to, when passing to colleagues a high-visibility case, make an allowance in the timing to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to act. When you have a colleague whose project is depending on your work, don't you make allowances in your own schedule so that your colleague has time to finish their part of the project?

    There were months between testimony and closing arguments, and at least another month between closing arguments and the ruling. That time was procedural, in that it was the time needed for Judge Walker to do his work properly. Maybe I didn't notice, but I didn't see this kind of outrage during those months…

    We've gotten the best possible ruling for our side in this phase of the process. If these 6 days cause such a visceral reaction, how will you be able to endure the months and months between now and a final ruling from the Supreme Court?

  • 157. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:24 am


    Thank you! I wish I'd found this board earlier! I've been mostly railing at imdb (!) but, a lot of regular people go there, so it's good to inject some reason.

    Where do I load my avatar? We all need fabulous avatars! I find them helpful for keeping who's posting clear…

  • 158. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Carpool Kathleen: you can go to to upload your avatar, and it will begin showing up here within about 5 minutes so long as you always use the same email address to post your comments with that you used to upload the avatar. And mine is going to have to be updated, because the only picture I could find that had both me and my husband in it is about a year old and is before I grew my beard back.

  • 159. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:10 am

    I'm embarrassed for the troll named Hi…who is probably to high to know what the date is & what has occurred in the last few months….so so so…embarrassed…. <3…Ronnie

  • 160. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:11 am

    well…that didn't go where it was supposed to go…lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 161. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Oh Hi…shut the f@#K up & say goodbye you fascist pig…not all heterosexuals can procreate….end of point…I was born Gay & you can't prove otherwise…Only I can know how I feel in my heart & soul…not you, unless you're psychic…& use some Logic, you unmitigated troglodyte….Gay people occur in nature & there is substantial proof that animals partake in same-gender relations as well…so if it occurs in nature…then what is it?….Natural…you uneducated, un-American schlock….<3…Ronnie

  • 162. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Hey Fascist Hi…Excuse me. Why do you choose to be an inhuman waste of life? Why do choose to go against the constitution & the law? As human beings are created to live our lives how we want to according to the LAW…not natural law (because that is subjective), not religious law (because we have freedom of religion & the free exercise thereof), & certainly not how you want us to live our personal lives according to your illogical, irrational, repugnant fascist beliefs…..

    It is not a choice to be Gay…You chose to be a homophobic Fascist pig. Leave marriage alone. Leave our rights alone. It's not we want Equality…its we will have Equality whether you like it or not.

    Be a human. Like you were created to be & not a toxic, dreg on society…..<3…Ronnie

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