Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

New Rhode Island marriage poll, NOM’s ads in Minnesota, and what’s on the ballot this year

Community/Meta

by Adam Bink

NOMprovidence3
Equality supporters on the steps of the Rhode Island State Capitol

Providence was one of the more controversial stops on the NOM tour, the scene of some tense confrontations: equality supporters shouting at Brown, two men praying in tongues (our most viewed video from the tour), Brown spinning wildly regarding attendance, etc.

However, a new poll out this morning shows the issue being debated- marriage equality- isn’t too controversial at all. The Rhode Island Marriage Coalition released a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner showing that 59% of Rhode Island voters support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples- a 10% increase from the last poll conducted in 2008. When individuals are told it would not impinge on a church’s right to marry who they chose- which is part of the recently enacted law here in DC- support increases to a remarkable 66%.

Some of the poll’s major findings:

  • The new pro-equality majority is demographically diverse. It includes Catholics (57 percent), women over 50 (56 percent), independent voters (58 percent) and parents (64 percent).
  • Support increases further with First Amendment reassurance. When told that marriage equality would not infringe on a church’s right to marry whom they choose, support increases to 66 percent overall and 63 percent among Catholics.
  • Politically, this is a net positive vote for state lawmakers. Asked about the impact of a vote for equality on their support for, 27 percent say they would be more inclined to support a candidate, 24 percent are less inclined, and nearly half (46 percent) say it would make no difference. Just 13 percent are much less likely to support a pro-equality candidate.
  • In Rhode Island, the LGBT community is the mainstream. Overall, 79 percent of voters here know a gay or lesbian person and 45 percent describe their feeling toward gay and lesbian people as favorable, while just 18 percent are critical. Seventy-five percent believe “homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society.”

It’s a big step forward.

On the politics of it, Gov. Carcieri, a horrible anti-LGBT elected official who even vetoed a bill to extend the right to make burial decisions of a loved one to same-sex couples, along with a bill to expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender identity/expression, is thankfully term-limited. Both leading contenders to replace him- State Treasurer Frank Caprio, a Democrat, and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent- have said they would sign a bill legalizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. The Rhode Island State House Speaker, Gordon Fox, is openly gay, and it’s expected equality supporters are very likely to have the votes in the State Legislature.

That brings me to another issue, which is the importance of gubernatorial races this year. A lot of anger poured out after Hawaii Gov. Lingle’s veto of a civil unions bill recently, including calls for a boycott. She is also leaving office, and now-former Rep. and Democratic candidate Neil Abercrombie is the only candidate who has said he will sign the bill and does not want to put the issue to the ballot. In Minnesota, where NOM just launched new radio ads attacking the Democratic and Independent candidates for governor over their support for the freedom to marry and lack of support for a constitutional amendment, we have another pivotal race, as the person who sits in the governor’s chair could be the one to sign or veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The same could be true in Rhode Island.

The point is that while it is (thankfully) a year free of anti-equality ballot initiatives like Maine’s Proposition 1 or California’s Proposition 8, this is not a “bye week” for our movement out in the states. There are still key gubernatorial elections that could decide the fate of marriage equality and civil unions in states. We’ll keep a close eye peeled on them, and hope you will too.

Tags: , , ,

208 Comments

  • 1. Richard W. Fitch  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Just cannot resist the chance to be first. 😉

  • 2. Bill  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Here's Maggie Gallagher's latest article.

    Her panic is showing…
    http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=z2hzj

  • 3. Joel  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:42 am

    Sorry to be nit-picker, but wouldn't this phrase "… could be the one to sign or veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage" be better expressed as "…could be the one to sign or veto a bill enacting marriage equality"?

  • 4. Sagesse  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:44 am

    Subscribing.

  • 5. John B.  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:49 am

    In Washington, DC Bishop Harry Jackson led the NOM crowd in the chant “let the people vote” because… um… apparently we DC residents didn’t already vote in the last election for the members of our DC Council–the legislative body that represents and governs us and passed marriage equality legislation in DC–or our mayor, who signed it into law?

    Well, okay… setting aside the whole problem of a majority voting on the civil rights of a minority, does this mean that if a majority of the residents of a state like Rhode Island are in favor of same-sex marriage (and recent polls show majority support in Rhode Island, New York, and Washington, DC) then the will of the people should be heard??? Would Harry Jackson, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher and their pals finally be okay with same-sex marriage? Somehow I don’t think so (and Brian Brown has already made the empty threat of of amending the U.S. Constitution if same-sex marriage makes its way through the Supreme Court…).

  • 6. OldCoastie  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:51 am

    how, oh how will Maggie make a living when this gig goes down the tubes?

  • 7. Ronnie  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:56 am

    ditto…<3…Ronnie

  • 8. Alan E.  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Then I'll be the technical 2nd (even though others have posted before me)

  • 9. Rebecca  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:04 am

    I was thinking the same thing! What do they do when the people vote to legalize marriage equality? Do they suddenly say, oh, um, only the legislature can make that decision.

    They're hanging themselves with their painful hypocrisy, and this shows itself more every day.

    *Louis, Brian, Maggie and any other anti-equality folks reading this, I have some inportant news for you.*

    You're going to lose. And every day, it looks like you'll be losing sooner rather than later.

    And when you stand before God at the pearly gates and have to explain your life to Him, you'll have to say why your life was dominated by malice, hatred and hurt. He knows every single prejudiced, twisted thought you've ever had. You cannot spin to God. You cannot fool him with hollow arguments.

    He is going to ask you why you used his Word, so full of happiness, acceptance and forgiveness, to hurt so many people and encourage discrimination. He will ask you why you ignored his primary rule: "And the greatest of these is love."

    "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16:23

  • 10. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:10 am

    Wait a minute, Mr. Postman, look and see, don't you have more emails for me?

  • 11. AndrewPDX  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Great… now I have that image from the beginning of Sister Act 2 in my head…. mmm

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 12. Cameron  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:29 am

    It may not be about marriage, but LGBT rights are on the ballot in Bowling Green, Ohio. Their inclusive non-discrimination ordinance will be voted on by residents of the town in the November elections.

    Check out One Bowling Green, the campaign to protect the ordinances and LGBT equality in BG: http://www.twitter.com/onebowlinggreen

  • 13. Joe  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:32 am

    All Democratic candidates for governor in Minnesota support marriage equality, and Republicans are very unpopular after Tim Pawlenty opposed most Minnesotans as a cynical bid to gain the Republican nomination for the presidency.

    NOM should be worried!

  • 14. AndrewPDX  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Agreed… It has been said before that "same-sex marriage" makes it sound like it's something more than what it is: "same-sex couples getting married".

    I'm not fighting for just "same-sex marriage". I'm fighting for "opposite-sex-but-don't-want-kids marriage" and "transgender-and-intersex marriage" and "every-day-boring-opposite-sex marriage" and all that. "Marriage Equality" is what I'm working for.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 15. JPM  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:36 am

    If a non-effectual clause stipulating the already existing right of clergy not to have to perform same-sex marriages can increase support for marriage equality by 7%, this suggests that with such a clause Proposition 8 could easily be overturned at the ballot box.

  • 16. Joe  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:37 am

    I ask that question too. So as soon as 50% 1 approve, they'll shut up, right? Two percent was the difference between Prop 8 winning and losing, and it's trending towards losing. Personally after all this, I doubt it would win again, especially with first amendment protections that have long been planned.

    Nah, they'll find something else to cry about.

  • 17. Dave in ME  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Heheh. Good one, Ann S.!

    Dave in Maine

  • 18. Dave in ME  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:39 am

    I agree with the both of you. MARRIAGE EQUALITY! Put any other way and it can be twisted into a matter of us demanding special rights.

    Dave in Maine

  • 19. Bob Barnes  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Not to change the subject, but now Maggie is commenting on the NOMblog.com

    http://nomblog.com/1640/#comments

    Desperation is not pretty, and the increased number of postings has all the signs of an anxious child.

  • 20. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:45 am

    always reminds me of the Beatles version.

  • 21. mattymatt  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:48 am

    And my goodness speaking of races how about California's! I know that Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris are our best advocates for marriage, but I'm not sure how their rivals compare, aside from Meg Whitman.

  • 22. Bolt  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Good morning, everyone,

    On Tuesday the P's requested a deadline extension to receive reimbursement from the D's. If the P's are entitled to a reimbursement, why would they ask the court for a deadline extension? Wouldn't it be more beneficial for the P's to seek reimbursement now instead of the end of the appeals process?

  • 23. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I believe California passed a law last year stating that no church has to perform marriages for anyone it doesn't want to. This was already true, but it was felt that having this on the books would help. Some of the conservatives actually opposed this law because they knew it was intended to help pave the way for marriage equality and a ballot initiative in a future election to overturn Prop 8. Now I can't find any news stories about it, I am going on memory.

  • 24. Bill  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:07 am

    It sounds like a really good idea, huh?

    Letting those who are the CAUSE of the discrimination vote on whether or not they should be allowed to do so.

    Until LGBT citizen's rights are no longer able to be voted on, we are not TRUE citizens of the country in which we reside.

    Taxation without representation's a bitch, no?

  • 25. Bill  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:07 am

    I bet she drools and talks to herself while furiously typing away…

  • 26. JPM  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I'm pretty sure the bill never made it into law. But its fairly irrelevant. Such language could be included on a Prop 8 overturn initiative regardless.

  • 27. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Also, would the DIs be entitled to reimbursement if by some chance they were to win the appeal? Are the Plaintiffs therefore waiting to file for reimbursement pending determiation of DI standing? Without DI standing, would the real defendants (the state of Calif, as in Arnold and Jerry Brown) be forced to pay the Plaintiff's legal costs?

  • 28. Anna Bryan  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:25 am

    The best thing about the article is the "what else is Meg Whitman lying about?" ad in the center of it. Go Jerry Brown!

  • 29. St8 ally  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I think that is the main point, isn't it.

    This is a business. While at the wheel of the bus, the purpose of the game is to get as much money as possible by the "passengers" (the supporters of "traditional marriage"). Once the music (and gravy train) stops, all Brian, Maggie, and the like will have left are the fond memories (and fat bank accounts).

  • 30. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:26 am

    "Or “fact” number 79- “The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.”

    Translation: The campaign never actually said this, but Judge Walker ruled it is as fact anyway." says Maggie. (emphasis added by me)

    Apparently she does not understand the meaning of the word "insinuated"?

    And yes, no rational person viewing those ads could possibly think other than what Judge Walker did.

    Yep. Maggie is looking at the end of her job rushing fast towards her and trying frantically to hold it off. I expect before long she will slide into "homosexuality is a sin, and God is going to strike us all down unless we DO something!" rhetoric, as the whining she is doing now gets more and more absurd.

  • 31. Anna Bryan  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:29 am

    I always say that the people already voted on marriage equality when they enacted the human rights ordinance by popular vote in 1973. They directed their representative to decide matters that affect the civil rights of minorities and decided thatnthose subject should not be included on a referendum.

    If the people really don't like it, they remain free to vote to eliminate the human rights act. Let's see how Bishop Jackson feels about that…

  • 32. Todd  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Hwæt!

    I love the Gay Agenda sign:
    1. Family time
    2. Equal rights
    3. Do Laundry

    I wonder if I can get that on a bumper sticker.

    Love,
    Todd

  • 33. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Believe me, I will be keeping a close eye on the elections, and will be working toward full equality as much as possible. We have already come too far to turn back now. We have fought too many battles to give up now. Full equality is too close, and I will not rest until we can join MLK in saying Free at last, Free at last.

  • 34. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Mr. Postman, bring me emails,
    (dun, dun, dun, dun)
    Make them with people's comments on P8TT!
    (dun, dun, dun, dun)
    Give me some links, opinions, discussions,
    Then let me comment there without repercussions!

  • 35. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Steve Cooley, Republican candidate for AG has gone on the record saying that, if given a chance, he will defend Prop 8. He blasted Jerry Brown for not doing so.

    I haven't been able to find a public statement by the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado on Prop 8. According to Vote Smart, he voted against a resolution (when he was a state senator) that states the Senate's opposition to Proposition 8. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php

    However, the resolution was a statement alleging Prop 8 was an "improper revision" of the state constitution. It's possible he just believed Prop 8 was a properly enacted amendment. Without knowing more about his position on marriage equality, I can't read much into that vote.

  • 36. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Her comment, and my response (which I am sure will die aborning).

    Maggie Gallagher
    Posted August 18, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Oh my gosh, Walker said Prop 8 violated TWO sentences in the Constitution? Well then it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to disagree!

    Really stunningly stupid thing for CNN to have said, (if they said it, relying on commenter above).

    Vienna
    Posted August 19, 2010 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Yes, indeed, Maggie. It WILL be difficult for the Supreme Court to argue when the two sentences that were violated were the two that specifically protect every right you (and I, and everyone else) have.

    Every single right guaranteed us is protected by those two sentences. Prop 8, in violating the "equal protection under the law" and "due process" sentences, violates everything we stand for as Americans.

  • 37. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:52 am

    I think the point of extending the time for reimbursement is simply to make sure that at the end of the case, nothing is left out. There may be bills coming in from various places (for research, for preparation of trial materials, and so much more) that may not arrive in the lawyers' hands until after everything is settled, and they simply want to make sure all the bills are in before filing a final reimbursement total.

  • 38. John B.  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:53 am

    "Let the people vote" is a great sound bite but it's an important point that we DC residents have already voted: we voted for the members of our District Council and mayor knowing full well they were gay-supportive and (for the most part) supported same-sex marriage. We voted, and we elected them overwhelmingly. But people like Harry Jackson seem (act) shocked that they are doing exactly the job we elected them to do: legislate on our behalf.

    The funny thing is that Mr. Jackson–minister of a Maryland church–has never voted in a single District of Columbia election; he registered to vote here for the sole purpose of having legal standing to challenge our laws (and whether he actually lives here as he claims is another question entirely). I think it's taken a bit of wind out of his sails that recent polls have shown a majority of DC residents supporting same-sex marriage, so we really do wish he would just shut up and go home to Maryland. After all, what kind of "traditional marriage" does he have if he lives in DC but his wife and kids live in Maryland?

  • 39. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:53 am

    You are so right!

  • 40. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Bolt, they give the reasons for asking for an extension in their motion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36040851/Doc-729

    Sorry, short on time today.

  • 41. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Kathleen, how is your septic/plumbing problem going???

  • 42. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Sorry if this has already been posted…great interview with Rob Reiner
    http://www.capitolweekly.net/features/personnelPr

  • 43. lee  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:05 am

    yea im going to be helping to get jerry brown and kamala harris in office .

  • 44. OldCoastie  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:08 am

    you gotta wonder if there isn't a special place in hell for those who trade off fear, uncertainty and doubt.

  • 45. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Here is what I posted for dear Mag Pie to think about….as if

    Oh Maggie Maggie Maggie….you say that #79 is untrue because non of the Pro 8 ads ever openly state children would be turned Gay if Marriage Equality were the law of the land….but you know and I know that you are not being truthful. The ads CLEARLY lead people to believe that should marriage equality happen children would be 'in danger'.
    The danger you see is that they might learn tolerance of LGBT people…that they might see these people as 'equal', and that just scares you at NOM to death doesn't it.
    The very idea that children might learn to embrace the diversity that exists in our world is just so totally unacceptable to you and your kind.
    You completely ignore all the actual evidence presented at trial by the plaintiffs, and the total lack of evidence by the defense. The defense went so far as to in open court tell the judge 'We don't NEED evidence'…and the reason was clear, it was and is because there is NO evidence to support your position.
    What will you do for a job once NOM is put out of business by SCOTUS? The Supreme Court of the United States will no doubt see past the hatred and illogical 'facts' you and your kind continue to spout and find in favor of equality and justice.
    The same arguments you use are the ones used to try and deny women the right to vote and interracial marriage to be recognized…the Bible, History, Tradition….none can justify the discrimination and injustice.
    Shame on you Maggie for all of your lies and all the pain you continue to cause loving families throughout this great nation of ours.

  • 46. nightshayde  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:09 am

    I think one thing in our favor is that many people in California are just sick and tired of seeing/hearing Meg Whitman ads. Without even knowing what she stands for/against, I've heard people say they'd never vote for her because the omnipresent ads are annoying (and have been since looooong before the primary), and because they don't trust the motives of someone who's spending so many millions of dollars on a political campaign.

    I'm perfectly happy to have her tick off as many people as possible. Whether people get just ticked enough not to vote for anyone for governor, or ticked enough that they vote for Brown just to punish Whitman, Brown benefits.

    I don't think I've seen a single ad yet for the Attorney General race.

  • 47. nightshayde  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Bravo!!!

  • 48. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:19 am

    the nightmare continues. plumber didn't find any roots in sewer line, due back here this afternoon to run a camera through line to see if we can figure out what's going on.

  • 49. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:19 am

    thanks for asking, kate.

  • 50. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:22 am

    @Kathleen, good luck with the sewer thing. When they did that to ours they found it had collapsed, and because it was "sudden and accidental" (unlike roots) the insurance company covered it.

  • 51. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Thanks Ann, that's good to know about the possibility of insurance covering it. I suspect there's a major break and shift in the line.

  • 52. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I'd really like to see Chafee win in Rhode Island. He was one of the few Repubs worth respect during the Bush years.

  • 53. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Kathleen, it will depend on your policy language of course. That's how it worked out for us. Good luck.

  • 54. Bolt  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:38 am

    The NOM must relinquish it's list of donors. http://www.pressherald.com/news/Judge-rules-on-ma
    This is from a federal judge that declared Maine's donor disclosure law does not harm the NOM's right to free speech. What the NOM is looking for is federal protection from protesters, but they can't have it. Let them reap what they sow.

  • 55. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Ask her if she would abort a gay fetus!

  • 56. Ron  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Somewhat off topic, but I want to ask the legal folks about this. Regarding the issue of "standing" with the PH8 trial at the 9CCA, a friend of mine told me (he was told this by a lawyer he works with) that the issue of the DI's "standing" will be decided upon when the first briefs are submitted in September. He was told that at that time the 9CCA might toss the case out based on no standing, instead of making everyone wait until at least December. Does anyone have any information about whether that might be correct or not? Thanks!

  • 57. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Or as someone else here mentioned ….. wait until it's a toddler to see first if it's "too girly" and then beat it to death.

  • 58. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:15 am

    @Ron, I think it is possible, but I don't know. Can't help much with this one, sorry.

  • 59. Bolt  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:15 am

    If he is elected, will he have the legal standing to defend it?

  • 60. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Legal pals, did the 9th really make their decision to continue the stay based on the silliness that the DIs presented in their brief? If so, no one with a brain will ever stand a chance in that court.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:16 am

    I don't know the answer to this. I thought the scenario you describe seemed possible. But we had an attorney with extensive appellate experience on the board and s/he said that the question of standing wouldn't be ruled on until the court date in early Dec.

    I think what made me suspect the Court might rule sooner, was that the Court's instruction to brief the issue of standing was directed specifically to Proponents, rather than both parties.

    But I defer to those with greater knowledge and experience, which is most of the legal folks here. :)

  • 62. Bolt  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Thanks, it seems like a simple enough reason. It's time consuming.

  • 63. Bolt  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Please share this web address with him. People with knowledge of the law, like Kathleen, are very popular.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:20 am

    We have no way to know why the Court decided as they did, as they offered no analysis of their decision with the order. I find it hard to believe that the Court thought D-Is made their case for a stay. It seemed more like a sort of compromise – grant the stay but expedite the appeal… a way of navigating the minefield they find themselves in. But that's just purely personal conjecture.

    Maybe someone with experience in dealing with federal appeals has a different take on it.

  • 65. Kalil  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Should also throw in a shout-out to the state legislatures. Here in North Carolina, our state legislature (which is controlled by the Dems) has repeatedly refused to consider putting an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, maintaining our status as the only state left in the South that hasn't constitutionalized discrimination.

  • 66. Ronnie  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Breaking news: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/four-gay-activis

    FOUR GAY ACTIVISTS ARRESTED AT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SIT-IN AT SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

    "Three heterosexual couples approached for their scheduled appointments to obtain marriages this morning. The group refused to move and allow the couples access to the office."….

    "The group has said they will not move even if they are arrested because they are protecting their civil rights. Shouting, 'We shall not be moved. No equality. No business as usual,' two members of the group say they are disappointed they cannot get married today."…

    "The sit-in was organized by San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME)"

    (me) WOAH!!!!….I love it..I love hype….NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 67. Jonathon  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:27 am

    @ Kathleen, my partner and I were wondering about something with regards to the the whole appeal process. Why would the 9th Circuit have both sides do all of the work of preparing their case for the appeal, etc. spend all the time, effort and money (for the next few months), to only deny (potentially) the Article III standing of the Prop 8 folks? Doesn’t that seem like a big waste of money and time? Does it really take them 3 months to determine whether the Prop 8 folks have “standing?”

  • 68. nightshayde  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:29 am

    … but does she talk to herself in tongues?

  • 69. MJFargo  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Sadly, I do think if they run those ads again they'll get a bump in their numbers. Hate seems to sell.

  • 70. nightshayde  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:34 am

    If he were elected to the position of Attorney General, I would think he would automatically have Article III standing based on the fact that he'd be appealing the repeal of a state law.

    However, if all the paperwork has to be submitted well before inauguration day, I don't think he'd be able to jump in.

    IANAL (and have never played one on TV), so don't give much weight to what I just said.

  • 71. Bryan  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Another important gubernatorial race to watch: Maine. Democratic candidate for governor Elizabeth "Libby" Mitchell has promised to sign marriage equality legislation into law if elected.

  • 72. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:35 am

    My wife and I lobbied Senator Maldonado last February when Equality CA had us convene in Sacramento for that purpose. Because it was during the whole budget debacle (and senators were, literally, locked in the chamber), we had to meet with Maldonado's chief of staff, who was mightily unconcerned with marriage equality. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that domestic partnership sufficed and "traditional marriage" should be upheld. We did get him to look up from his Crackberry when we told the following story. It seemed to cause him a moment of pause.

    We explained that we have been together for decades and when domestic partnership laws were becoming the popular "solution" for equality, we dutifully applied. In this particular instance, we were in Seattle, and so had to take the domestic partnership certificate to a notary public. We went to the local copy shop/office supply store, where the man who owned it was the notary. He notarized the document and then wished us well with our "business." We didn't have to explain any further to the chief of staff fellow why the word "marriage" matters.

    But, I don't think our lobbying efforts moved Abel that day. The largest part of our district is NOT coastal CA–Santa Cruz and Monterey–which are, of course, very No on 8. The largest part is SLO and inland agriculatural areas (the Maldonados are a big farming family), and the Salinas and Central Valleys are heavily Yes on 8. We just this very week chose, as a district, to fill Abel's seat with a pro-8 Republican, instead of John Laird, openly gay man with what I see as a very good record. Sigh.

  • 73. AndrewPDX  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I think it's silly, to think that a gay couple would want to have an anti-same-sex preacher perform their wedding.

    "I now pronounce you husband and husband and may you burn in Hell"

    I have just one question to the clergy who are afraid of having to marry a gay couple: Were you born that arrogant, or did you choose to be an egotist?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 74. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:41 am

    It does seem inefficient but maybe it has something to do with the practical workings of the Court. I posted an article here somewhere (can't find it now) :( that discussed when the three judges who will hear the case are assigned. IIRC, it is 3 months prior to the hearing date. Maybe it's just not practical to have the Court rule on this issue earlier.

    Again, maybe someone with experience with federal Courts of Appeal can offer insight.

  • 75. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Latest update: 13 arrested: http://www.10news.com/news/24687663/detail.html#

  • 76. Sheryl Carver  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Ann S,

    It took a while to figure out how to get reasonable search terms for Google, but I did find it. Mark Leno's bill, SB 906,
    has passed the CA Senate & is awaiting its 3rd reading & then(?) a vote by the Assembly.

    To avoid moderation …
    wwwDOTeqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5766307
    and
    wwwDOTleginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_906&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno

  • 77. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Thank you, Sheryl! So it's not dead, yet. Might even get passed. Cool!

  • 78. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:54 am

    An Amended Judgment entered and stay pending appeal issued in the Mass DOMA case Gill v. OPM. This article has links to the judgment, stay order and an updated FAQ from GLAD. http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/08/19/amended-judgme

  • 79. Sheryl Carver  |  August 19, 2010 at 4:58 am

    I understand more than ever that the way our legal system works is sometimes very odd, indeed. There are or were probably reasons for the way it's been set up, but to the lay person (me, in this case), it can seem illogical.

    Case in point – it seems like an appeals court should rule on the standing issue BEFORE requiring attorneys on both sides to do an enormous amount of work to prepare for the actual (non-standing-issue) appeal.

    If the appellants are determined to have no standing to appeal, then both sides have done an enormous amount of work that becomes useless, right? Or am I missing something obvious?

    Maybe the answer is "that's just the way it is", but if so, would one of our legal mentors (Thanks to you ALL!) please explain why it's set up this way?

  • 80. Em  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I think these poll numbers show something really important about the SSM issue in every state and all around the world: People just simply don't know what they're voting on, what the actual ramifications are for their lives and the lives of others, and who they can turn to for the truth. Living in the Bible Belt, I see more than my share of people (even in my own family…) who hear something inflammatory on Fox News or in the pulpit of the local church and without doing a bit of fact-checking, they pick up the torches and pitchforks and take up the chant, no matter how absurd. One of the most frustrating things about this battle has been and will probably continue to be that the (often uneducated and ignorant) masses who are voting on our rights have no idea what they're really doing.
    Argh.

    On a kinda-but-not-really related note, my best friend posted this vid to my facebook wall this morning and I wanted to share it on the off-chance someone hasn't already linked it in the blog or the comments:

    Trailer – 8: The Mormon Proposition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezwIZo-hKiI

  • 81. Felyx  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:02 am

    "Walker’s ruling will be overruled, if not by the Supreme Court then by Congress." – Maggie

    Because as we all know, separation of powers only applies to aberrant gay judges.

    Because Congress has the authority to overrule the judiciary… no really, it is in the Constitution. I am sure of it!

    Because the Constitution does not have to be consistent within itself. (No discrimination except for the people we don't like.)

    Because Maggie KNOWS it will be overruled because God told her so!

    Is there anything else I left out?

    Felyx

  • 82. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Thanks for the info, JC. I would never consider voting for him anyway, given that he's running against Gavin Newsom. Newsom has been a vocal and steadfast ally from the beginning.

  • 83. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Everything I'm reading suggests that if the governor and AG want to appeal the decision, they have to submit notice within the 30 day window after the judgment. Clearly that will be long gone before the election, let alone taking next year.

    However, I haven't gotten a clear answer to the question as to whether a new governor or AG can step in if/when the case goes beyond the 9th. In other words, if D-Is are found to have standing and the appeal goes forward, could new elected officials choose to step in if/when the case goes to the Supreme Court? If anyone has a clear answer to that question, would love to hear it.

  • 84. Sheryl Carver  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Yes, Ann, it certainly looks hopeful.

    Yet, as others have pointed out, this is a totally unnecessary bill, from the standpoint that it merely restates what is already true. If it shifts public opinion & support, that's great. What is incredibly sad is that so many voters are so ignorant of civics. Sigh.

  • 85. Sheryl Carver  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Hooray for you & your state!

    It's great that there are such good people in your legislature, who have the courage to do what's right, vs what might be politically expedient. (Mr. Obama, care to comment?)

  • 86. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:20 am

    thanks for that news Ronnie, I was waiting for that

  • 87. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:28 am

    and also Kathleen,,,

  • 88. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I think this might be a useful provision for easing the minds of some members of the public who somehow don't understand the powerful First Amendment guarantees, but it will not suffice for the likes of NOM.

    In a debate with a pro-equality state official in Pennsylvania, Maggie G said a similar provision in that state "didn't go far enough" because it didn't protect businesses that want to discriminate. I think she may have been referring to the like of Catholic Charities, but possibly meant any businesses – can't remember now.

  • 89. PamC  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:32 am

    try cafepress. If you search for gay agenda, some interesting stuff comes up; my favorite so far is, "I used to have a gay agenda, but now I have a blackberry."

  • 90. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Awesome. Now that the entry is done, the clock starts. The Obama admin. has 60 days to decide whether to appeal.

    I'm hoping he does. Let's strike down DOMA at the Federal level.

  • 91. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Kathleen, I'm sure that Maggie does want to protect businesses that want to discriminate. Too bad. Also, that is a separate (albeit related) issue. The photographer in New Mexico who wanted to discriminate? Well, they don't have marriage equality in NM. The photog just wanted to discriminate, period. They weren't allowed to discriminate under NM law, and marriage equality won't change that.

    But no doubt you already know this. Preachin' to the choir, I know.

  • 92. aaron  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Maggie is gay. Clearly. And she can't accept it.

  • 93. Straight Grandmother  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Laughing my Guts out, read this comment from the NOM blog,

    "The evidence Judge Walker used was biased, not valid scientifically, based on minuscule sample sizes and self reporting. Further the court refused to even look at legal precedent, several cases were already decided by the federal appeals court that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    It has be widely reported that the judge has engaged in homosexual acts in various newspapers. it this is true, someone failed to serve justice and recuse himself.

    Once these facts are pointed out and considered by the appeals court, the districts court's findings will be vacated and traditional marriage will rule the day."

    We should ask Judge Walker to stop performing homosexual acts in the newspapers. If he wants to do that he should strictly perfom in magazines, not newspapers. Do these people even know what they are writing?

  • 94. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:48 am

    She used to be such a cute little actress, too. I'm even boycotting her brother's Spiderman movies, now.

  • 95. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:52 am

    I want the f-ing government to issue me a husband.

    SPOUSES ON DEMAND!

    A hubby for every bed!!!!

  • 96. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:53 am

    The amended judgment and stay apply only to the Gill case, not the Commonwealth of Mass companion case. I don't see anything about an amended judgment in that case. So, at least as of today, the judgment entry date of Aug 12 applies. I expect a stay in that case as well. The order hasn't come in, but the motion for stay says Massachusetts offered no objection.

  • 97. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Yep. That's why it's so obvious that no matter NOM says, this is NOT "just about marriage." They've just found that marriage seems to be the rallying cry that gets them the most mileage at present.

  • 98. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:00 am

    Oh dear.

    I don't think this is a good thing. Those couples who are being denied THEIR rights by protestors are not to blame. And they are being punished.

    I am not sure about this message.

  • 99. Trish  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I can't believe there's no mention of Andy Pugno. Pugno, as you all probably are aware, is the author of Prop 8. He is running for California State Assembly in District 5 (in the Sacramento region). Sacramento Stonewall Democrats have set up a website to fight him: http://www.stopandrewpugno.com.

  • 100. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Where was that argument from, about the guy saying churches would have to open up their marriage counseling programs to gays?

    Like, what gay couple will be going to marriage counseling at THE CATHOLIC CHURCH??????

  • 101. Sheryl Carver  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Ah, yes, the NOM agenda:

    2. Legalize & encourage any & all discrimination against LGBTs everywhere.

    1. Guarantee lifetime employment for Maggie (& Brian, as long as Maggie gets hers.)

  • 102. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:11 am

    well we'd have to get to know the individual couples to see if they are to blame or not,

    and how come we look to the couples behind, rather than the one's who are in place for their rights and being denied, aren't they being punished. if they weren't being punished neither would the others.

  • 103. AndrewPDX  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:19 am

    A) how, exactly, does one perform such activities in a newspaper? wouldn't that kinda scratch? Ok, please don't actually answer; we need to keep this a 'family' show after all, lol.

    B) <cite>“The evidence Judge Walker used was biased, not valid scientifically, based on minuscule sample sizes and self reporting."</cite> that was only Blankenhorn's studies, who was a witness for the defense. Walker explicitly valued his 'evidence' as having no weight, so he didn't use those studies in his ruling. Instead he used "scientifically valid and peer-reviewed evidence" in his decision.
    Maggie, please get your facts straight (pardon the pun).

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 104. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:19 am

    While I don't disagree that the couples in the front of the line are being punished, I worry that we send the message "it is OK to prevent people from getting married, see, we are doing it too!"

    Not the message to be putting out there.

    I am all for protesting at county clerks offices, I would LOVE to see couples there talking to people going in to get their marriage licenses and saying sadly, "Congratulations! We wish you all the best, and much joy in your marriage. We also wish that we were allowed to JOIN you in that joy, but we are not. Please remember us as you get married, and we can't."

    One way earns us enemies, the other, friends. And I think friends serve us better in this fight.

  • 105. Straight Grandmother  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Bolt, thanks for the link to the Court Case in Main where the Federal Judge said NOM had to discolose their donors. I read through a bunch of the comments and one fo them was really funny- here is is-

    "Good – it's high time to pull the sheets and hoods off and see who's under there"

  • 106. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:28 am

    sounds too much like begging to me, I'm glad they stood up, this whole lthing is an inconvenient fact, for all concerned, welcome to reality

    waiting for an interview with the OS couples who where made aware of what it feels like to be inconvenienced, by denial fo rights. that would be interesting.

  • 107. Straight Grandmother  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:29 am

    It was pgbach who posted on here and s/he said s/he had even clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, was it Justice Brennen? This person an impressive amout of experience in Federal Court systems.

    pgbach, please come back on here and post
    Thank you

  • 108. Straight Grandmother  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Great! My only suggestion would be tha they should have gone and had the sit in in Imperial County instead.

  • 109. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Kathleen….if you are in the L.A. area, you are cordially invited to my house for a bubble bath.

  • 110. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I think I have mentioned before about how my brother and BIL used to take a single red rose to the county clerk every year on Feb. 14 and ask for a marriage license (only to be reluctantly denied).

    Imagine couple after couple in line, each with a single red rose for the clerk, each asking for a marriage license.

  • 111. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I don't think it is begging, but we differ on our view of tactics, obviously.

    I think it is perfectly OK to get in the face of NOM, shout them down, make our presence felt there. Fighting fire with fire is quite often the best way to go. I don't think it ok to break the law doing so, however. I would never deny them the right to SAY their piece, even as I am exercising MY right to say mine louder.

    And I don't like punishing people who are NOT trying to deny us rights by denying theirs. Unless we interview everyone coming in to a clerks office and only prevent those who voted for Prop 8 getting in, I find it a tough call to make, hurting people who may actually be on OUR side.

    Yes, it looks like it is a balancing of things, but it really isn't, in my view. Two wrongs don't make a right. And that is quite a different thing than fighting fire with fire.

  • 112. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Actually, it started me thinking of The Carpenters, so I guess we'll have two versions of it on this thread.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE5dqYB-_I&fe

  • 113. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Ann S.,

    THAT I could see. That would not be denying others access, and would make the point beautifully.

  • 114. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:42 am

    the news release states two gay couples showed up for their "scheduled appointment"

  • 115. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Bob,
    Yes. And how many of the folks behind them were doing the same?

  • 116. Anonygrl  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:48 am

    OK… I am going to say one more thing about this, then let it go…

    I think marriage equality should not be "you can't get married because I can't", it should be "I can get married because you can."

  • 117. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:53 am

    neither your opinion or mine matters in this situation, they chose to take this action, the purpose of the protest was to draw public awareness to our plight.

    the media releases will be the deciding factor on what message got out.

  • 118. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Yes. "Marriage Equality". Every time. It sends a completely different message than Same-Sex Marriage.

  • 119. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:02 am

    She's well behind in polls. :(

  • 120. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Interesting. So how does that work? Do the two cases have different windows of time for appeal, now?

  • 121. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Speaking of elections…what about Nancy Elliot, the N.H. rep who was obsessed with "excrement wrigglers"? I love how the woman to the right is obviously thinking "Why do I have to sit next to her all damn term long?!"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-8sF8e6WdM

  • 122. Trish  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:05 am

    No no no, Sheryl. They don't want discrimination. They just want to treat LGBT folks differently. It's not discrimination to treat different things differently. /sarcasm

  • 123. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:11 am

    LOL — right before 1:00 the woman next to her appears to be writing a plea for help and passing it to her neighbor.

  • 124. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:14 am

    The note be saying, "Do we have her Thorazine???"

  • 125. Kate  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:15 am

    She's anti-earthworms????

  • 126. lee  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:16 am

    i live in that region and i did not know that , but now that i do i am going help make sure he loses his election.

  • 127. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Knowing how insane people are in Central CA, I wouldn't be surprised to see him cruise to victory.

  • 128. Josiah  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Yep. And like a growing number of sane Republicans, he's left his former party in disgust over what they've become.

  • 129. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:23 am

    The big scandal was, she claimed a parent had told her children were being taught about anal sex in elementary schools. Within 48 hours she had to release a statement admitting there was no such parent….she'd just been told there was. She was BIG news for about 2 weeks.

    New Hampshire state Rep. Nancy Elliott (R) of Merrimack

    Remember the name.

  • 130. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Is this recent? When I click the link I get a "Page Not Found" error.

  • 131. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:25 am

    I think Lee is talking about Pugno, and you, Cookie, are talking about Nancy Elliott. Both wingnuts, of course.

    Nancy Elliott is awfully gullible if she thinks — oh. Never mind. Clearly she doesn't think.

  • 132. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Thanks! Be careful, I might take you up on it! heehee.

    I used to live in Venice (California) and the tiny place I lived in only had a shower, not a tub. I would often go to a friend's house for dinner or a party and take a bath while there. It became a running joke. Q: 'Where's Kathleen?' A: 'Oh, probably taking a bath.' People would come in and visit, we'd sip drinks while I bathed. :) Eventually I got an old claw-footed tub that I put on my back deck so I could take open air baths at home.

  • 133. lee  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:33 am

    yea i was talking about pugno but i would love to help get her out of office too.

  • 134. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Oh…I thought that looked like there were a few typos for "she". Thanks!

    Anyway, Nancy Elliott info here: http://vote-nh.org/Intro.aspx?State=NH&Id=NHE

  • 135. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Hi Lee, I hope you don't mind if I pass along a tip about replying. If you mean, for instance, to reply to Trish's post about Pugno, you can click "reply" right under her post, and your reply will appear below her post.

    Thanks,
    Ann

  • 136. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:39 am

    It appears they're off by 6 days. All that means is the feds have to file their notice of appeal 6 days earlier in one case than the other.

    According to the article, the amended judgment in the Gill case was the result of negotiations by the two sides to include more detail as to what exactly the judgment means for each of the individual plaintiffs. Perhaps this wasn't necessary in the Commonwealth of Mass case.

  • 137. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Back when this first his the news and I watched that video, I soooo wanted to know what the woman next to her wrote down.

  • 138. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 7:50 am

    I don't know what's happened with those links. I read the story earlier today. Here's another report. Note the headline "Maine ad rules found unconstitutional" despite the fact that the story states that the judge upheld most of the law. <a href="http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.me/3611930d -www.wgme.com.shtml” target=”_blank”>http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.reg…” target=”_blank”>-www.wgme.com.shtml

  • 139. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:00 am

    That's the thing, Joe; the second popular opinion is against them at the polls, they'll run to the courts without the slightest sense of irony. Although the way this trial is going, they may prefer to just complain about tyranny of the majority, which is even more ironic.

  • 140. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Sometimes we DO seem to run out of reply options, though, and have to go up further?

  • 141. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:09 am

    I am curious. First, Thanks Kathleen – as always!

    Are the rules the same in these cases as in Perry – in that no new evidence (witnesses, etc.) may be introduced on appeal? I don't know if, given these were decided through Summary Judgment, things might be different.

    Advanced thanks for anyone who can clarify.

    <3 Jason

  • 142. Dave P.  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Yeah those papercuts can be awful. And you get ink stains in the most awkward places.

  • 143. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:15 am

    bJason, there was no trial (no witnesses, no evidence) for a summary judgment proceeding.

  • 144. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:19 am

    OK, carpoolcookie, time to kick it up a notch. Proponent of Uganda's "kill the gays" law, Martin Ssempa, is similarly obsessed with excrement. And it got onto YouTube. And it got remixed with techno music.

    NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMDNrup56U4

  • 145. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Same basic rules, new evidence only allowed in exceptional circumstance. The fact that it's a summary judgment doesn't change that. It just means there won't be the same kind of evidentiary record because there wasn't a trial, so no witness testimony.

    There is a slight procedural variation because the federal government is one of the parties. The feds have 60 days to file an appeal, instead of the 30 days allowed in Perry. There was also an automatic stay of 14 days, which didn't apply in Perry. I'm not sure why.

  • 146. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:23 am

    @ Ann. Thanks! :)

    That fact is what informed my question. Given Summary Judgment on these cases should the DOJ appeal will there THEN be a trial? – i guess is where I was trying to go. I should have known better than to use the phrase "NEW evidence" . Sorry. Not up on the workings of the courts. Just trying to learn.

  • 147. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Thanks Kathleen.

    I assumed that documents presented to Judge Tauro (sp?) at the outset were considered "evidence" in his consideration. Is that correct?

  • 148. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:37 am

    @Jason. Yes. In general, appeals courts don't have trials. They rely exclusively on the record from the court(s) below, briefs from the attorneys and oral arguments. Oral arguments are kind of like what you witnessed in closing arguments in Perry, except that it's generally a panel of judges instead of just one and they don't usually get as much time as Walker allowed. Both sides are given a certain amount of time to argue their side, with the judges interrupting, asking questions.

    Then the judges go back into hiding, do their thing and issue a written decision. :)

  • 149. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:37 am

    @bJason, it is possible but I think unlikely that a higher court should order that there be a trial. There is no disagreement on the facts, though — only the law. No one disputes that plaintiffs are not getting social security and other benefits that they would be getting if the federal government recognized their marriages, for example.

  • 150. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:39 am

    @bJason, I assume that all of the documents submitted to Judge Tauro were legal briefs, and may have included stipulations of fact, since there is no dispute as to the facts. A stipulation is where the parties agree to a set of facts to save time.

    This is actually how the Prop 8 proponents wanted Judge Walker to handle the Prop 8 case — as a summary judgment hearing, without presentation of evidence.

  • 151. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:40 am

    This is another prime example of what NOM's message of HATE gives people freedom to think they can get away with.
    http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/19/police-gays-are-

  • 152. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Thanks ladies! :)

  • 153. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:50 am

    If an appeals court thinks there needs to be greater clarification of factual issues, the standard procedure is to remand the case back to the district court for additional fact finding.

    For example, there was the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Reed about disclosure of names on a petition (from Washington state). The Court said that although names generally must be made public, there might be exceptions. The Court then sent the case back to district court for additional fact finding and a decision to determine whether the actual petition that was the subject of the lawsuit would qualify for an exception.

    Btw, here's an update in Doe v Reed: http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2

  • 154. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Ann, I wasn't considering that the facts were not disputed (not thinking – but I do remember that). That's a pretty important part for my brain to have left out. :)

    Thanks for the reminder!

    Thankfully, J. Walker didn't take that route for the Proponents!

  • 155. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:52 am

    OH MY!

    The NOM tour would have had MUCH better attendance if Maggie Gallagher had lead the crowd in an "Eat Da Poo-Poo" singalong.

    They needed some kind of a floor show, or something.

  • 156. JefferyK  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:53 am

    People can vote on whatever they want. I mean, Californians could vote to enslave every straight white male if they wanted to. However, if the resulting law faces a constitutional challenge, the law must be defended. And then a judge decides.

  • 157. Breaking the Silence  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Oboy. She has space-time and congress on her side. Do Boies and Olsen know about this?

  • 158. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Thanks for additional info, Kathleen! I am such a nerd. Legal procedure fascinates me.

  • 159. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I'm lucky I've lived my entire life in metropolitan areas that were liberal. When I pass through a small town, I actually feel subliminally scared. Have never been through the south, and don't want to. (Not to bash the south…I'm sure it's lovely. There's just a few too many loonies there.)

  • 160. JefferyK  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:57 am

    They're not?

  • 161. JefferyK  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Either she is or the husband is or both.

  • 162. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Ann, IIRC, attorneys can file papers like depositions and affidavits with their briefs. While there can be no disputes as to material facts, there can be facts which could be open for interpretation as to their implications. If that's the case, then the standard for summary judgment requires the judge to view those facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment.

    Is this correct? As I've said before, procedure wasn't never my strong suit and it's been a LONG time since I studied all of this.

  • 163. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:02 am

    @Kathleen, that sounds somewhat familiar. It's even longer since I've studied this. I think I'd better shut up about it.

  • 164. Trish  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Kathleen, your analysis is correct.

  • 165. JonT  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:03 am

          ❰●❱
    ┣●┫         ┣●┫

    Stay on target… Stay on target…

    (Subscribing)

  • 166. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Yep. If the government sanctions discrimination, it sends the message that the group being discriminated against is 'less than' and needn't be treated with the respect afforded others. This is just an open invitation for people who are prone to doing violence against others.

  • 167. Kathleen  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:20 am

    I didn't go to law school with the intention of becoming a litigator. It came as a surprise that I seemed to enjoy it and might even be good at it. I remember doing a kind of mock trial in one of my classes 2nd year (not moot court) in which I formulated the strategy and argument for our side. When we 'won' (decided by a panel of student judges) I literally got a 'rush' – like all tingly and stuff and I was hooked.

    By that time, Civil Procedure was behind me with no way to to reclaim the hours I'd zoned out while struggling to stay awake in an 8am class. :) Of course, if I'd gone on to practice, I'd have learned quickly on the job.

  • 168. Breaking the Silence  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Still harping on the possibility of the judge being gay automatically making him biased, eh? Then, naturally, as mentioned many times before; a straight judge, too, would have to be biased. To any asexual folk out there who might be considering a career as a judge; it sounds like there's an area of law tailor-made for you! Oops..they would, by definition, have to be biased against marriage generally. Can there be no justice?!?

  • 169. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Wow. Just wow ~ all the comments (so far) are from us and allies. No support at all from Maggie's side, not even BS Brown! LOL

  • 170. truthspew  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:56 am

    What really irks me most is that RI COULD HAVE HAD Marriage Equality in 2010. Yeah, because that funeral bill, the legislature OVERRODE bigot Carcieri's veto.

    And not for anything, we have an openly gay man as Speaker of the RI House. Come on, not even a hearing this past year. What gives?

  • 171. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Is she high? I mean, really, watch the video again. IS SHE HIGH?

  • 172. Owen  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Interesting. Thanks for posting that and answering my inquiries. I'm very invested in the DOMA case because it's so promising. Walker's ruling would be that much more powerful if we get Federal rights.

  • 173. bJason  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:59 am

    the above comment was meant to go under the Nancy Elliot video

  • 174. Ronnie  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:04 am

    ROFL….I had to get that song & postman image out of my head so I went looking for the scene…time for some entertainment…<3…Ronnie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P29J7RdldQo

  • 175. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Also, you'd think that the influence of neighboring Connecticut and, especially, Massachusetts would have had a greater impact. If it's an uphill battle in RI, small wonder it's so hard elsewhere. :

  • 176. Felyx  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:15 am

    "This is actually how the Prop 8 proponents wanted Judge Walker to handle the Prop 8 case — as a summary judgment hearing, without presentation of evidence." – Ann S

    Damn pesky evidence. If God had intended us to have 'facts' he would have written them all down in a big book and just given it to us!!!

    Love,
    Felyx

  • 177. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:24 am

    The discussion board for this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484522/board) is the epi-center for the marriage equality topic at imdb. Before that, it was the Carrie Prejean page.

    I only watched this movie last week — don't tell them that — and it was effective. It says the LDS was behind founding NOM…which I didn't know. Interesting!

  • 178. Trish  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:25 am

    *GASP*

    Felyx, how dare you say such things? You know books aren't "natural" so they must be EVIL! God would never put words in a BOOK!

  • 179. Dave P.  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Getting our message into the mainstream media does not have to conflict with the idea of avoiding being seen as the 'bad guy'. In fact, it's important that it doesn't conflict. What I mean is, yes, if we're going to engage in actions like this it is important to do something that gets into the press. A sit-in will do that, handing out roses probably won't. But a sit-in that may be seen as antagonizing or harassing people can send the wrong message.

    So – perhaps some brainstorming is in order. What actions can be taken at the County Clearks' offices that are likely to get the attention of the media, while assuring that we send the right message about how our rights are being denied, and don't risk being viewed as vindictive or unfair to others?

  • 180. Dave P.  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Yes, the replies only go about four levels down. If you don't see a 'reply' button on the post you want to reply to, click on the nearest 'reply' button above it and make sure you start your reply with the name of the person you are replying to, like 'hi carpoolcookie' or '@ carpoolcookie' so it's clear who you are responding to.

  • 181. carpoolcookie  |  August 19, 2010 at 10:49 am

    I know. RE: Nancy Elliott clip, it's like, "Stoner say what??"

    The group that pounced on her immediately after that was the local elementary school teachers. They were adamant about that NOT being part of their carriculum. Then it turned into charges of, "If you were informed grade school kids were being shown nude pictures and diagrams and being coached in how to have anal sex, Ms. Elliott, Why didn't you go to the police?"

    She got blown out of the water.

  • 182. Bob  |  August 19, 2010 at 11:22 am

    also important to understand this is not our potest, we are only stating our opinions, and perhaps judgements, of someone else;s action

    This particular one was sponsored by SAME, San Diego Associaton for Marriage Equality, I'm confident that they put effort and thought into this, we may be reading more into it than necessary,, I doubt it was done without thought

    All we are doing on this board is commenting, unless of course a group from this board wants to organize a potest, then, we could get more into the details.

    I'm also waiting to hear about the protest march sponsored by another group, which was to be a march at 6p.m. today, haven't heard anything yet.

    It's my understanding from reading the news clip, that one of the guys who was involved in the action at county clerk, is himself and attorney,

    So far the sit in, has made a bit of news, I wonder what SAME feels about their actions?? would be nice if they could post to let us know

  • 183. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 11:28 am

    @ OldCoastie: There is a special place in hell for those who trade off fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is directly under the heap of coals that fuel the fire.

  • 184. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 11:50 am

    Kalil, where in North Carolina are you? We are in the Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg area. Were you at ENC's day of Action in May? We were, and were able to talk one of the legislators into taking his name off the list of sponsors for the latest attempt to make discrimination part of our state constitution. He also told us that if the Prop H8 case did not make it to the SCOTUS, that we would probably see an amendment within several years that may add marriage equality to our state constitution. We actually gave him some ideas for a respect for marriage amendment–that in order to recognize a marriage, that marriage should be entered into by two people who have attained the age of majority, are not closely related to each other, are not currently married to anyone else, and desire legal recognition and protection for their spousal relationship.
    And he agreed with that idea. The tide is turning here.

  • 185. Ray in MA  |  August 19, 2010 at 11:52 am

    RI and MA are like two different world's apart.

    You'd never guess that they share the same border.

  • 186. rf  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Agree 100%. grew up in RI less than 20 miles from the border (which is most of the state) and to this day, MA is still a mystery to me.

  • 187. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I have to get that one for BZ, in honor of his 6-month-old Curve 8530.

  • 188. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Carpoolcookie, who is Maggie's brother?

  • 189. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    @ Carpoolcookie: LOL!! I already have the hubby. We just want the legal paperwork that will give us the protections and the recognition of that.

  • 190. Kalil  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    I'm in the Raleigh area, although I go to school in California, so this month is the first time I've been home since Christmas break. I was disappointed I missed the opportunity to meet Pam Spaulding and the other local and national activists at the counter-NOM rally last week, but I was in Greenville visiting some friends. It's great to hear about your successes with our legislators. I like the idea of a respect-for-marriage amendment – it'd go a long way towards disarming the anti-marriage forces, especially with the legally redundant but politically advantageous addition of language stating that churches will not have to perform or sanctify weddings outside of their creeds.

    I'd be surprised if North Carolina legalized gay marriage before the federal government forces the issue, but I've been pleasantly surprised by our progress before. As I like to tell my friends in Cali, "We're a Blue State now."

    I do agree that the tide is turning, nation-wide. It's hard to cling to homophobia your son or daughter or cousin or friend is putting a face to your nebulous hatred, instead of some anonymous Chick-tract stereotype. The stereotypes can't stand, the religious dogma becomes hollow, in the face of the real thing. Love is love.

  • 191. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Oh, I don't know, maybe the priest and the deacon?

  • 192. Ray in MA  |  August 19, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Hi rf,

    "Only in RI"…

    After moving to the area, i thought RI stood for "Rhode Ignorant".

    Where NE has a group of states in such a small geographic area, only those being there can apppreciate and understand the poliitical differences.

    Because of their state pension laws alone, RI may become the first bankruupt state to fall in this economic deppression. Marriage Equality is the least of their problems.

    Remembr this comment in three years time. I "Hope" I am wrong. ("Hope" is the RI state motto)

  • 193. lee  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    lol im sorry about that , yea thanks for the tip

  • 194. Ann S.  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Well done, lee! Now if I want to reply to you, there isn't a "reply" to click under your post, so I had to go back up to the first "reply" I see and click there.

  • 195. PamC  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    As small as RI is, there is a lot of variety among the different areas, from Newport & Watch Hill to Hope Valley and Foster. The same could be said for CT & MA. I've often wondered how MA won marriage equality in spite of a strong Catholic demographic. I think RI Catholics are slowly being won over due to knowing someone gay.

  • 196. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Especially in the Fayetteville/Ft. Bragg/Hope Mills area of North Carolina. I feel as though I am taking my life in my hands every time I get in the car to go anywhere. And their lack of driving courtesy is only one area of their lunacy.

  • 197. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Kalil, if you are on FB, look for me. The name I use here is my real name. If you want to make sure you have the right one, just find me in the Prop 8 Trial Trackers group. Hopefully we will get a chance to meet you before you have to go back to school, but if not, let's try to plan something for your next break at the end of the semester.

  • 198. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    They'll be yelling about that "activist" judge.

    Sheryl

  • 199. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    And they will be panicking even more than they already are, and their true colors will begin coming out even more. They are truly becoming the newest rendition of the WBC, aren't they?

  • 200. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 20, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Very late to the Scribe party!

  • 201. Alan E.  |  August 20, 2010 at 8:31 am

    @carpoolcookie , you are thinking of Maggie Gyllenhall. Different person completely.

  • 202. Breaking the Silence  |  August 20, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Ooh, I liked Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Happy Endings." 😉

  • 203. Alan E.  |  August 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Have you seen Secretary? I giggle every time I edit something with a red marker.

  • 204. Breaking the Silence  |  August 20, 2010 at 9:31 am

    LOL, Alan, yes. & Me neither from now on!

  • 205. Kathleen  |  August 20, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I got lost in which layer of a joke carpoolcookie's comment was. I mean, I get that she knew Maggie G wasn't Maggie Gyllenhall, but I'm guessing she also knows Jake Gyllenhall didn't play Spiderman? I figured it just flew over my head… :)

  • 206. cna training  |  August 21, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

  • 207. Paleo Pizza Recipes  |  December 25, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    Generally I don’t learn post on blogs, but I wish
    to say that this write-up very pressured me to take a look at and
    do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, very nice article.

  • 208. Optimizepress  |  March 5, 2014 at 6:53 am

    Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on
    sites I stumbleupon everyday. It will always be useful to read
    through content from other writers and practice a little something from their
    web sites.

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