Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Prop 8 trial: New (mystery) brief filed in support of defendant-intervenors

Briefs Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

As Alan E asks in the comments, who is Gage Raley (from Japan?) It’s a good question, but here’s the brief Gage filed seeking to have Judge Walker’s decision overturned. Kind of late to the party, but there it is.

[scribd id=71208125 key=key-g8t61uk29qnubstvumd mode=list]

Update: Courtesy of peterplumber in the comments, our side just filed this:

Dear Ms. Dwyer:
On behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellees, I write to correct the record concerning the motion to file an untimely amicus brief submitted by Mr. Gage Raley. In his motion, Mr. Raley represents that “[b]oth parties have granted their consent to the filing of this amicus brief.” Mtn. at 2. Mr. Raley is mistaken. Plaintiffs-Appellees have not consented to the filing of Mr. Raley’s untimely brief. Rather, Plaintiffs-Appellees informed Mr. Raley that the parties previously had consented to those amicus briefs that complied with this Court’s rules. Because Mr. Raley’s brief is filed long after the deadline established by the Court for the submission of amicus briefs, it does not comply with the Court’s rules and Plaintiffs-Appellees do not consent to its filing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Theodore B. Olson
Theodore B. Olson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  November 1, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    A must-read if you're in for a good laugh! Thomas Aquinas was cited as a very credible source for animal behavior at some point, and that's only the tip of this giant flop of an iceberg.

  • 2. Alan_Eckert  |  November 1, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    An example:

    ‎[A whole bunch of really old dudes all] "recognized that female fidelity was the only way to ensure the legitimacy of progeny and that a husband’s control over his wife’s body was the only means of ensuring paternity"

    Therefore, same-sex marriage is bad, mmkay.

  • 3. Michael Portland OR  |  November 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    What in the world. Or in texting parlance…..WTF?

  • 4. Josh  |  November 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Haha, they're really grasping for straws.

  • 5. Kevin  |  November 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Gage Raley just graduated from UVa Law school; I'm curious to see what his "note" looks like.

  • 6. Jim  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Do we think it's this guy ( ), whose previous expertise seems to be as a paralegal in his dad's law firm, which specializes in expunging criminal records?

  • 7. Paul  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    I feel sorry for him. What a horrible life to sit there an expunge the criminal records of convicted criminals all day for a measly $350.

  • 8. David  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    I was interested to note that if you exchange the first letter of each name it's "Rage Galey". Curious, no?

    This argument goes down the same way the procreation argument does. If this stops same gender marriage then it stops grandma from marrying as she is clearly not going to concieve so no need to establish any paternity. in the future there will be a need for a fertility test before a marriage license can be granted. No need for marriage if one or both are infertile.

  • 9. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Yep. Female fidelity is the only way we have of determining paternity… Riiiiiight.

    We're back to the same unsubstantiated claim that marriage is about producing children, in which case there would be tests administered to determine ability to conceive and a marriage license would require conception (in a certain time frame? Who knows?) at some point in the marriage to remain valid. As neither of these conditions are prerequisite, obviously it is a false premise. My own marriage would be null and void because my wife had a tubal ligation during her first marriage and is now post-menopausal. Every one of these "birther" theories just serves to piss me off.

  • 10. Alan E.  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    I just noticed something big about the brief. At the end on page 47, Gage lists other groups that he mailed the brief to:
    Liberty Counsel (specifies Matt Staver)
    United States Catholic Conference
    Catholic University of America
    Thomas More Society

    He also mentions a few times a publication he is writing to be released later this year. My assumption is that he is working with these groups to write and distribute it. Keep this brief and comments ready for later this or next month. I'll email Jeremy Hooper when I get home to give a heads up.

  • 11. menergy  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I say that and nodded — "of course, the usual suspects"…….

  • 12. Rhonda  |  November 1, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Arizona, Illinois, Maine, and Utah will allow 1st cousins to marry only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children. This blows the whole marriage for procreation out of the water.

  • 13. MSenesac  |  November 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    The 1st cousin marriages, I wonder if they are reconized in other states.

  • 14. Nat G.  |  November 1, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Gage was an intern in the Bush White House Office of Presidential Correspondence.Gage was an intern in the Bush White House Office of Presidential Correspondence.

    To the best of my understanding, he seems to be mangling the presumption of paternity; it holds that the father is to be treated as the father not only in cases where that is true, but in cases where that is unlikely to be true, granting the child a recognized parent besides the mother. This seems just as needed in lesbian marriages as in straight ones, particularly because of the strength of that unlikelihood. If you go as he does to the specific aspects of California law, you will see that the presumption of paternity does not apply to marriages where the husband is impotent or infertile — and yet, such men are not barred from straight marriage, thus making it clear that presumption of paternity is not the decisive matter for marriage in California.

  • 15. peterplumber  |  November 1, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    The brief presents a genealogy of the marital presumption of paternity, which began in prehistoric times as an evolutionary reproductive strategy, was recognized and co-opted by the state for legal purposes in Classical Antiquity, and continues to establish legal paternity for over half of children born in the United States

    The key point here is that the statistic presented only covers about the children born in this country. Are the other half orphans? Born to two parents households out of wedlock? Don't the unwanted kids need "paternity" too? Gay couples are the best suited to take in these lost and forlorn kids. I myself am working on adopting one at this point in time. He was the product of a one night stand and never had a father. The mom was a crack addict and this kid was born with cerebral palsy When he was a young teenager, the mom up & died from crystal meth overdose. This kid was thrown into a horrible set of circumstances for the next few years. He has no use of his right hand. I actually enjoy cutting his meat for him at supper time. I wonder who Gage expects to cut Dexter's meat at suppertime? I wonder who Gage expects will care for Dexter for as long as he needs caring for?

  • 16. peterplumber  |  November 1, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    In both of these cases, the Court surveyed “over 700 years” of Anglo-American common-law legal-treatise writers.”14 Glucksberg further noted that “other late-medieval treatise writers” echoed Bracton’s writings on suicide.15 In both cases, the Court relied on the writings of Sir William Blackstone,16,17 and noted in Glucksberg that his “Commentaries on the Laws of England not only provided a definitive summary of the common law but was also a primary legal authority for 18th- and 19th-century American lawyers.”

    What the author fails to mention is that in medieval England, theocracy ruled and the Church controlled the Monarchy and the courts. This is one of the main reasons the settlers came to the colonies and had a revolution. They needed to escape this overseeing of State by the Church. That is why we keep the two separate.

  • 17. Kevin  |  November 1, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    The Ninth Circuit should reject the brief in its entirety. Its author fails to make the disclosure statement required by FRAP 29; thus the court has no way of knowing whether or not any interested party drafted any part of the brief or funded its production in any way.

  • 18. Lynn E  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:55 am

    Interesting list. Sounds to me like he's padding his resumé by adding this brief as one of his accomplishments.

  • 19. Steve  |  November 2, 2011 at 4:59 am

    No. That's the usual, romanticized fairy tale, but it's wrong.

    They fled England because they weren't allowed to be the oppressors themselves. They promptly established a theocracy in the colonies and executed people who didn't agree with them. The first colony founded with freedom of religion in mind was created by people fled from the Puritans.

  • 20. loaferguy  |  November 2, 2011 at 5:19 am

    California Lawmaker Comes Out of the Closet, Cites Gay Bullying

  • 21. Gregory in SLC  |  November 2, 2011 at 5:19 am

    Peter, good for you and partner …I hadn't heard about Dexter : ) Hope things work out for your expanding family!

  • 22. AnonyGrl  |  November 2, 2011 at 6:49 am

    There is NO guarantee of paternity, short of locking the woman in a chastity belt or something equivalent to that. Even paternity tests are not 100% accurate, so the only thing guaranteed about a child's parentage is that his or her MOTHER is a known quantity. And that is only because we can watch the child being born, a much more difficult thing to fake than a cover up of a quick roll in the hay with the stable boy while her husband who has "control over his wife's body" is off for a night out with the boys.

  • 23. Ronnie  |  November 2, 2011 at 8:00 am

    Pfffft…. Gage really has no gauge of reality. What an undereducated deluded opportunistic know nothing about nothing maroon…… Rolls eyes & moves on… 8 /

    Subscribing & sharing….. Daniella Monet from Nickelodeon's "Victorious" joins the Straight But Not Narrow campaign….. <3…Ronnie:
    [youtube -Zy8iBlA7VU youtube]

  • 24. Sheryl_Carver  |  November 2, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Which is why I've thought for decades that it makes much more sense for all societies to be matrilineal, not patrilineal.

  • 25. John  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Yeah… but how does that give men the power they want to control women and their bodies?

  • 26. John  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:31 am

    I wonder if they will still argue with all this nonsense if we are one day able to genetically filter and modify ourselves à la Gattaca one day? At that point any related people wanting to 'reproduce' would be able to so long as they use genetic technology. Marriage would no longer need to restrict consanguination.

    For that matter, didn't we just symbolically celebrate 7 Billion person day on Halloween? Is there really a need to push people to reproduce? Aren't there tons of children needing adoption? Aren't there even more children desperately in need of more care and nurturing that would benefit from more providers and fewer siblings? Is there anything better we can be wasting our time and energy on other than punishing gay people but prohibiting them from receiving equal treatment?


    Big money pushing crap ideologies… I think I will go Occupy something.

  • 27. John  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Tell it like it is Steve!!!

    It is time to stop playing with the wealthy and powerful (and those who seek this out) and start bringing together all the people who want peace, harmony and a real heaven on Earth!

  • 28. rocketeer500  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Don't forget California. 1st cousins can only marry if: 1) Either one or both parties are medically certifed infertile; 2) Both parties are over age 65); or 3) If the women is not 65, she must be past menopause.

    And yes, this destroyes the whole "it must be for procreation" arguement.

  • 29. rocketeer500  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Yes they are. Under the 10th Amendment (Full Faith and Credit clause). Not to mention marriages where the brides are 15 years old, etc.

  • 30. Bob  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Silly me; I thought that current law does not really recognize procreation as pertinent to the right to marry. I guess I was misinformed. /facepalm/

  • 31. Joe  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:51 am

    I am pretty sure Gage wrote that as an application for "The Onion".

  • 32. AnonyGrl  |  November 2, 2011 at 10:01 am

    How much do you want to bet that "Rage Galey" was what the kids tormented him with growing up, so now he is warped and anti-homosexual because of that?

  • 33. AnonyGrl  |  November 2, 2011 at 10:05 am


  • 34. DaveP  |  November 2, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Wow, this brief is a great example of the idea 'give them enough rope'. These crazy briefs that are full of bizarre and obviously irrational claims are only helping our side win by providing more and more evidence of a lack of rational basis for denying equal marriage rights.

  • 35. Carol  |  November 2, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Wow! This kid worked So Hard on his law review article that he just had to sent it to the court. I have no doubt some law clerks and judges are going to get a few laughs from it. So go for it, Gage, not everybody can make a judge laugh at work.

  • 36. atty79  |  November 2, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I think he's job hunting and doing a damn good job at it. What better way to promote yourself in front of potential employers than to show them how you not only think like they do but also think outside the box?

    As to his argument, yikes. His marital presumption argument falls flat on its face if for nothing else than that the presumption itself includes exemptions already: (1) only applies to husband and wife who cohabitate, and (2) only applies to those who are not impotent or sterile. Based on his own reasoning, if current marriage laws apply to sterile couples or those who don't cohabitate, they would similarly lead to "inequitable, illogical outcomes".

  • 37. Cat  |  November 2, 2011 at 11:51 am

    A careful historical analysis of the 19th century clearly demonstrates that a vehicle with four wheels has been the preferred design for stable road-based transportation devices, and has served mankind well. Hence, the government has a rational basis to ban all bicycles, tricycles, and trucks with more than two axes.

  • 38. Cat  |  November 2, 2011 at 11:52 am


  • 39. Ronnie  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    1 Axle, 2 Axles, 3 Axles, FOUR!!!!…. Equality for ALL wheels – 1 Door, 2 Doors, 3Doors or More!!!…. Don't hate my ride yo…… ; ) …Ronnie

  • 40. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    I think the last of that phrase is really telling us what the ultimate goal of the right wing is — the woman is dominated by the man. Too bad that the right wing women don't understand this.

  • 41. New  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Coincidentally I was making a similar analogy with the evolution of flying machines and the flying pioneers and their theories about how their mechanical birds should look like.

  • 42. New  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    "Don't hate my ride yo.." LOL I like that

  • 43. fiona64  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    I watched a film last night, "Vera Drake," that some of you may have seen. Imelda Staunton, in the title role, plays a woman in post-WWII London who "helps out girls in trouble" and is eventually arrested for it. When she finally tells her family what she's been doing, there is a very poignant scene. Her daughter's fiance, Stan, came from a poor family. Here's what he said: "There was six of us in two rooms. It's different if you're rich. You can't love kids if you can't feed 'em." While the rest of the family was in varying degrees of uproar, one person brought up the practicalities. So, yes: more providers and fewer siblings, just as you state, would be sensible given the insanity of the worldwide population explosion. But giving women the ability to have self-determination (which is to say, stepping outside their rigid gender role of having no purpose other than procreation) is bad in the misogynist's eyes. And remember, misogyny and homophobia are the same thing: fear of people stepping outside of rigid gender roles.

  • 44. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    I'm pretty sure first-cousin marriage in California is unrestricted–no medical or age requirements. The CA Family Code (where the marriage laws reside) doesn't say anything about requirements for cousin marriage that I know of. This is the only bit that I could find that determines which marriages are disallowed:

  • 45. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 2, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    And apparently no one disclosed to the author that the rest of us are living in the 21st century. Citing Sir William Blackstone? Please, already.

  • 46. Michael in SF  |  November 2, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    If only the ancient Greeks and Romans, medieval Europeans and English had Maury Povich, there would have been no need for marriage law ever in the first place.

    You ARE the father!

  • 47. AuntieAdrian  |  November 2, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I understand that if there is a chance of ruling against a group which has shown its willingness to throw as much paper and money as possible, going to ever higher levels of the judiciary system, the court is granting tremendous leeway to the side which has, in some ways, the most to loose. The more "fair" the court can be, the less likely is it that their decision will be overturned by a higher court.

    What astonishes me about this amicus brief is its audacity.

    It is dated October 27, 2011. The original brief by the litigants he is supporting was filed September 17, 2011. Any amicus briefs by that side were supposed to be filed no later than 7 days from the original filing, which would have been September 24, 2011. It is being filed 33 days after the deadline for filing the last amicus briefs in the case. He says he was doing research for a paper to be published later when he "found out" his information "could be helpful to the court" long after the deadline had passed. It seems to me that one of the Defendant-Intervenors read his paper, got in touch with him, and asked him to present his paper as an amicus brief, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW the deadline was long passed.

    The rules in Federal Appellate Court state a principle brief may be no more than 14,000 words, and any amicus brief be no more than half that total – or 7,000 words – without permission of the court. This brief is 11,420 words, big enough to be a principle brief on its own.He says he needs more words because he has a new way of looking at marriage. I will agree that it is a totally different way of looking at marriage from what most Americans are used to, but I will argue that its gender bias and disregard for DNA paternity tests are inappropriate and irrelevant in this case. The original brief was 30,315 words – more than twice the accepted limit. Seems to me the Defendant-Intervenors are really getting a tremendous amount of leeway in presenting their case.

    The Court did allow this to be filed, as is evidenced by the November 1, 2011 filing date. I really don't understand why, unless it is in the context of attempting to prevent further litigation when they finally rule.

  • 48. James UK  |  November 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    I didn't bother reading past the first few paragraphs.

    In addition to the other comments as to procreation never having been a requirement of marriage, US and UK family law has removed the taint of illegitimacy. Indeed a significant minority (about 45% in the UK) of children are now born out of wedlock. If proof of paternity was important historically, it isn't now.

  • 49. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Unfortunately, I think these poor, deluded women *do* know that. They believe the rhetoric and the lies, and fight the harder for it.

  • 50. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 2, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Poor Onion… all kinds of hot water for them lately! 😉

  • 51. AuntieAdrian  |  November 2, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    If this man's notion of what marriage "is" and "is for" is followed to its logical conclusion, does this negate divorces? After all, if you have progeny by your "sequestered woman" it would seem the marital relationship could NOT be dissolved because the marriage is for the children, and of the people who created those children, not a matter of government or state decree, or religion, for that matter. Sheesh, there must be a lot of "bigamists" by his definition.

  • 52. John the Baptist  |  November 2, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Previous posters have already pointed out flaws in Raley's brief sufficient to shoot it down. I'm now more interested in seeing how the Creationists, who are the Prop 8 supporters, are receiving Raley's brief, considering it begins with a foundation of modern evolution theory. Will they – or can they – accept a brief whose foundation is modern evolution theory, the theory that undercuts their fundamental belief in the literal reading of the Genesis creation account?

  • 53. peterplumber  |  November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am

    This just in! Ted Olsen has filed this rebuttal letter:
    Dear Ms. Dwyer:
    On behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellees, I write to correct the record concerning the motion to file an untimely amicus brief submitted by Mr. Gage Raley. In his motion, Mr. Raley represents that “[b]oth parties have granted their consent to the filing of this amicus brief.” Mtn. at 2. Mr. Raley is mistaken. Plaintiffs-Appellees have not consented to the filing of Mr. Raley’s untimely brief. Rather, Plaintiffs-Appellees informed Mr. Raley that the parties previously had consented to those amicus briefs that complied with this Court’s rules. Because Mr. Raley’s brief is filed long after the deadline established by the Court for the submission of amicus briefs, it does not comply with the Court’s rules and Plaintiffs-Appellees do not consent to its filing.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /s/ Theodore B. Olson
    Theodore B. Olson
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees

  • 54. peterplumber  |  November 3, 2011 at 10:52 am

    And the court denies the request for the brief:

    Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Gage Raley’s motion to file an amicus curiae brief out of time is denied. [7952837] (KKW)

  • 55. Sapphocrat  |  November 3, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Some interesting articles online today:

    "The Prop 8 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just accepted a friend of the court brief on same-sex marriage written by a 20-something conservative recent law school graduate named Gage Raley. Mr. Raley insists that he has found an original constitutional argument to support bans on same-sex marriage, and he seems awfully proud of himself. His idea closely tracks the main objection to same-sex marriage, specifically the notion that the state should favor heterosexual marriages since men and women can have children together. Raley notes that the presumption of paternity accorded a married father under current law would not apply to same-sex couples. …"
    (Headline: "Friends Don't Let Friends Write Amicus Briefs" – LOL)

    "… But sadly, it seems that young Gage is pursuing the wrong career. He should have chosen history so as to take advantage of his story telling skills. Because law requires logic, a tying of facts to consequences that reflect a process of thinking that can withstand and opponent’s review. And, sadly…. well, let me just give you his premise. …"
    Much more (and well worth the read):

  • 56. Sapphocrat  |  November 3, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I think it's that guy. I also think that guy is this guy:

    Interesting discussion (search, skim & scroll):

    Georgetown refers to its female students as "girls"…?!

  • 57. Sapphocrat  |  November 3, 2011 at 11:40 am

    (Sorry about the formatting mess in my previous post, folks; the links still work, tho'.)

  • 58. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  November 3, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    […] behalf of the plaintiffs, Ted Olson objects to the mystery, late brief filed by Gage Raley a few days ago: Dear Ms. […]

  • 59. fiona64  |  November 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    It appears that he comes from a Quiverfull family (I will save that rant for another time), which also explains his obsession with keepin' wimmenfolk in their place by makin' 'em have lots of baybees. It also means that he or at least one of his siblings is gay, just from a statistical perspective — and if I were to a wagering woman, I'd say that it's *him* (see numerous earlier discussions on how the most vocal homophobes are closet cases, complete with scientific evidence).

  • 60. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 3, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Well….and the finding that a significant number of children born *within* wedlock are not genetically related to the husband, something that one doctor noted in the middle of the last century but thought too socially troubling to talk about. Whoopsie!

  • 61. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 3, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Why, the answer is obvious, Auntie: this GROUNDBREAKING ARGUMENT was SO IMPORTANT and filed by a person of such high MORAL AUTHORITY the court would JUST HAVE TO STOP EVERYTHING and LISTEN!!!

    This view inside the arrogant delusions of Mr. Raley and his supporters brought to you by The Letters "F" and "U."

  • 62. Kathleen  |  November 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    fyi, there is no full faith and credit clause in the 10th amendment.

  • 63. Carol  |  November 3, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Oh, shoot! I spent all that time and read all those books and stuff, and they say they aren't even going to read my brief! Oh well, at least I got it out there, online and everything, and lots of other folks are reading it. I think it's going to do me some good with certain people, if you know what I mean.
    /s/ Gage R.

  • 64. Straight Dave  |  November 3, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    The Full Faith and Credit Clause is Article IV of the Constitution, but with some "public policy exceptions" recognized by SCOTUS over the years that seem a little fuzzy to me.

  • 65. Gage  |  November 3, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Hi everyone, this is the real Gage Raley. Exciting to find the one small corner of the internet where my brief is being discussed. I got my first piece of anonymous hate mail today so I knew somewhere out there people were talking about it.

    Anyway, I’m disappointed that the court denied the motion to file late, but not surprised. I'm actually glad I filed late, because it meant people noticed the brief, instead of it getting lost in the flood of amicus briefs.

    Now that the argument is being circulated, I’m interested in seeing what the Prop 8 supporters do with it. In my humble opinion, it is a stronger argument than anything they’ve put forward so far, but as a commenter already mentioned, it’s rooted in evolutionary theory (which creationists will be uncomfortable with), and it portrays marriage in a rather utilitarian, cynical light (which people in general will be uncomfortable with).

    If the Ninth Circuit hears this case en banc, or if it goes to SCOTUS, I’m filing this again. Only on time this time.

  • 66. Connie  |  November 3, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    All of you read it, so I guess he accomplished something!

  • 67. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 3, 2011 at 9:02 pm

  • 68. Ronnie  |  November 3, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    ROFL……. FAIL….. XP…Ronnie

  • 69. cain69  |  November 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    I don't think the clerks and judges are laughing. He did serious research, obviously.

  • 70. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:35 am


    Frankly, m'dear, I think you should sue your law school for malpractice. There is no requirement to breed in order to marry. Just in case you missed that day in family law class.

  • 71. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Yes, but I don't think it was quite what he intended …

  • 72. Gage  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:58 am

    I didn't take family law, I just watched Maury

  • 73. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:00 am

    You're probably right. My guess is they're grunting with disgust, like they do whenever some amateur wastes their time.

  • 74. Abby  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:08 am

    This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. "Gay couples are the best suited to take in these lost and forlorn kids. I myself am working on adopting one at this point in time." That sounds like you are trying to adopt a gay couple, but since that makes about as much sense as your comment, I'll assume you meant a child. Obviously there is no proof that gay couples are best suited for that job. I could just as easily say that swingers are the best choice for raising these lost and forlorn children. It sounds equally stupid. As for Dexter, why are you and other gay people the only ones qualified to cut his meat? Does he hate the way straight people cut it for him?

  • 75. Hannah72  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:15 am

    But family law DOES require you to be of opposite sexs. "Breeding" requires that, as well. And what malpractice did the school commit? He wrote the brief based on his research. That's what challenging (or upholding) the law is all about.

  • 76. peterplumber  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Just to clarify, for you Abby, I meant that gay couples usually have no kids of their own, so they can take in kids that have been abandon or otherwise orphaned. I didn't mean that a same sex couple is a better set of parents.
    Also, it is not that as a gay person I am "qualified" to cut his meat at dinnertime, it's just that he told me in all his life, no one has ever cut his food up for him, he normally eats like a barbarian, piercing an entire pork chop on his fork and gnawing away at it.

  • 77. cora88  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:22 am

    It's exactly what he intended. Go read his response. He has an extremely high level of intelligence (I went to school with him) and he knew filing late would get his brief noticed. He knew EXACTLY what would happen. Never underestimate.

  • 78. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Obvious troll is obvious …

  • 79. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:28 am

    I don't think he knew what would happen, Cora … specifically that we would all laugh and point at one more person who seems to think that procreation is a requirement for marriage — which it plainly is not. Or is Mr. Raley going to also argue that the postfertile, infertile and childfree (such as myself) are unable to marry? I think my husband's going to be very surprised indeed to learn that some kid whose law school degree is barely dry says we can't be married because there would be no children for him to "presumptively" father. We are no longer in the Middle Ages, madame.

  • 80. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:28 am

    That's relatively apparent …

  • 81. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Family law requires you to be of the opposite sex? What, in order to have a family? ROFLMAO. I know a whole lot of same-sex couples with children who will be surprised to learn that they are not a family. And honestly? Breeding requires merely spermatazoa and ovum. It can be accomplished in a petri dish. I think it's fairly clear what malpractice the school committed, if it turns out a "lawyer" who thinks that procreation is some kind of a requirement for marriage. Tell us, Gage, how long does the couple have to churn out a young'n before their marriage is null and void under your premise? And why, if it's all about presumption of paternity, are you not out railing against marriages between post-fertile couples? You seem to lack consistency at a minimum.

  • 82. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I'd like to thank all of Gage's sisters for stopping by to support their big brother in the face of the mean ol' pro-equality people who have already seen his "marriage is about teh baybees" argument so many times before. Why, some of those mean ol' people are actual lawyers who have passed the bar and everything! Oh, and those silly judges; why, they just didn't have Gage's tremendous insight about how "marriage is about the baybees." Thank you all for showing us the error of our ways. We just did not see how very different Gage's argument was from all of the other "marriage is about the baybees" arguments that have already been presented.

    Bless your collective hearts. And I mean that in the Southern sense.

  • 83. Gage  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:48 am


    Oh, are you done fiona64?

  • 84. cora88  |  November 4, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Even in a petri dish it takes sperm and egg, so, again, what's your point?

  • 85. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Take your blankie and go color while the adults talk, Gage.

  • 86. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 10:26 am

    I'm guessing you missed a day or two in biology. Ever heard of parthenogenesis? No? Allow me to enlighten you:…. Or perhaps you like this one better?

    My point is, and continues to be, that there is NO PROCREATIVE AND/OR FERTILITY REQUIREMENT FOR MARRIAGE. NONE. ZIP. NADA. (Yes, I'm yelling on purpose.) Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting, non-related adults.

    What is YOUR point, madame?

  • 87. Carol  |  November 4, 2011 at 10:52 am

    That it does not take a marriage of two people of the opposite sex to make a baby, just a sperm and an egg, as you say. People who can't make babies often marry, and people who don't marry often make babies. As others have noted here, modern family law has centuries-old presumptions and other mechanisms – like adoption – to ensure the legitimacy and promote the loving parenting of children, regardless of who supplied the sperm and the egg.

    Some of us here think Gage's argument ignores that fundamental legal and practical point.

  • 88. Kathleen  |  November 4, 2011 at 10:55 am

    For the record, that list is part of the official service notification. There is a list of parties that must be provided a copy of anything filed with the court in this case–parties that have all gotten involved in some way or another, generally through filing amicus briefs themselves. Filing the documents through the e-filing system is considered sufficient service on a party, as long as that party is also registered with the e-filing system. The parties on that list are the ones he had to send the brief to by mail because they're not part of the e-filing system.

    My point is only that he didn't choose who is on that list; it's determined by the rules of the court.

  • 89. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 4, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Really? The only briefs we've ever seen filed late have been similarly inane ones, so your schoolmate's in like company. Too bad his extremely high level of intelligence didn't lead him to see that the only ones who are taken seriously by the court….or anyone else…are those who are intelligent enough to file their briefs on time. Maybe he was too scared to have a real judge read it.

  • 90. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  November 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    …and a point that was already argued and shot down in court. Too bad Raley's "research" didn't include any of the pertinent case law or even the previous filings in this case. The good news is, if this is the best argument Prop8 supporters have got, we're sure to win.

  • 91. fiona64  |  November 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Hopefully, if young Mr. Raley, Esq., does carry out his threat to resubmit, he will not resort to dishonesty (to wit, "both parties have approved," when such was plainly not the case). Hardly a promising start to one's legal career …

  • 92. keith_randy  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:07 pm


  • 93. keith_randy  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    The kid has clearly got some smarts considering the schools he was admitted into and how he presented his brief, regrdless of what he says in it. He's obviouly put time and thought into this, yet I'm still not clear on what his intentions are. I am leaning toward the assumption that he was just trying to cause some waves because I am sure he knew the legal ramifications of filing late. I mean, I don't think he's a complete yahoo. He's pretty well versed in his propoganda.

  • 94. cramer5476  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    I doubt Gage Ralley even cares about gay rights one way or the other. He probably just picked a controversial topic and presented a brief for his senior year of law school. I agree, he should be a historian. Shame to throw those research and storytelling skills away on a topic he's probably not even passionate about.

  • 95. JohnDBaptist  |  November 4, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    According to Prop 8 supporters, traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. But in the mid-East, actual traditional marriage continues in the centuries-old tradition of Old Testament times, being an arranged union of an older adult male and one or more prepubescent females of the same ethnicity. I understand case law is based on precedent, but I don't think historical precedent is going to help the Prop 8 supporters' case.

    Also, historical homosexual marriage should be considered.


  • 96. AnonyGrl  |  November 5, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Your opinion SHOULD be humble. Yours is not a particularly new point, just a more ridiculous way of stating it.

    None of your points about paternity relate in any way at all to marriage equality. Men who marry women will still do so, and their offspring will still be their own (or won't, since marriage is no guarantee of fidelity). If two women or two men marry each other, none of that will change.

    Additionally, any thinking woman reading your brief would, because of your very assertions, probably choose not to marry a man. I know if there were any truth to what you claim, *I* would certainly become a very strong advocate of never letting anyone marry.

  • 97. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  November 11, 2011 at 9:39 am

    […] In a one-page, one-sentence brief, the 9th Circuit has denied Gage Raley’s attempt to file a mysterious amicus brief after the deadline for such filings had passed.  (If you don’t remember Raley’s 60+ page brief, it can be found in full here.) […]

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