Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Prop 8 trial: New amicus brief filed in support of rehearing by 9th Circuit

Briefs Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

From, surprise surprise, Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund:

[scribd id=83425930 key=key-1to7uesrfhl04gdzo536 mode=list]

Over in Quick Hits, peterplumber pulls out the most glaring sections and what’s wrong with them in the comments.

h/t Kathleen in Quick Hits


  • 1. Sagesse  |  March 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm


  • 2. Alan_Eckert  |  March 6, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Phylis Schlafly logic:
    Prop 8 is not unconstitutional because the state constitution now contains Prop 8.

  • 3. Kathleen  |  March 6, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Rck Santorum said essentially the same thing, "“Here, you have the 9th Circuit saying that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. I mean, that’s just, on its face, almost absurd,” he said. “The people of the state of California can decide what kind constitution they have.”

  • 4. Bob  |  March 6, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    And revealing that Santorum knows very little more than nothing about the Constitution.

  • 5. Bob  |  March 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    The reasoning runs the gamut from circular to entirely opaque.

  • 6. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Hey, Adam, Jacob, et al: How 'bout getting Schlafly's gay son to do an interview for us?????

  • 7. Lodi Gal  |  March 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    I'm sorry if I overlooked it in another discussion thread, but do we have a rough timeline for when the 9th Circuit might decide if they are rehearing the case?

  • 8. Chris in Lathrop  |  March 6, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    rick santorum (I refuse to capitalize either of this obscenity's names!) is the typical GOP candidate: he throws around these quotable, sound-byte type of statements–this is his "bridge to nowhere" quote right here–pandering to what he believes is a bigoted voter base. His knowledge, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with anything here. He may even be well versed in the Constitution, but is such a backwards, cynical jackass that he'll say whatever he thinks will win him the election.

  • 9. Chris in Lathrop  |  March 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    This is what comes of making an issue a "states' rights" issue–a patchwork set of laws. Thus the obvious importance of removing DOMA! :)

  • 10. Peterplumber  |  March 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    I love that idea!

  • 11. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Hey Peter, maybe you know how to track him down?

  • 12. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    (If I were he, I'd definitely have changed my name decades ago………..)

  • 13. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Oh. So much for that idea. What's the gay version of an Uncle Tom?

  • 14. Straight Dave  |  March 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    There was some conversation about this last week but I forget which thread. There are some slightly fuzzy legal time limits.Several of us kicked around the estimate of 5 weeks from Feb 7, but it could be a little bit more or less than that. Not long, in comparison to the rest of this saga. I still can't come up with even a half-baked reason why the 9th would feel a need to rehear this.

  • 15. Leo  |  March 6, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    In Footnote 10, "For opposite-sex couples, however, there is no difference between non-marriage civil arrangements and marriage. Id. at 57."

    Anyone know what they're even talking about? I read page 57 of the opinion very carefully and don't see that anywhere.

  • 16. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Ah, even with a link to an article describing NOM's run-in with Maine election laws, the NOMbies continue to claim it meant nothing. I am convinced there are all a bunch of robots over there. But at least I thought they were capable of reading. Guess not………

  • 17. Kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    The NOMbies have proven me wrong. I humbly stand corrected. I used to believe that ignorance could be cured, and they have led me to the light on that one. And now that my posting run is over and I am again blocked from that site, I am feeling quite a sense of relief over being freed from their "responses" that do nothing but prove their inability to think and from their fingers-in-ears mindless denials of reality. "Propaganda! Propaganda!"

  • 18. Bob  |  March 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    I admire your attempts Kate,,, you are courageous!!!!! can't say you didn't try,,,

  • 19. Bob  |  March 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    I didn't know what to do with that info Kate,, but I posted it on my facebook,, and hope more people do,,, to bring attention to him,,, he sounds messed up!!!!! wonder how he would do in an interview,,,,,,,,

  • 20. kate  |  March 6, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Thanks, Bob …… I really did need that. I guess that since I hang out with folks who have brains, either here or in my analog life, the kind of stupidity they evidence is very depressing to me.

  • 21. Leo  |  March 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm

  • 22. Robert McCann  |  March 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Me too, Kate! They finally blocked me, too!

  • 23. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2012 at 4:35 am

    Pigeon chess. Brilliant. And I learned a new term today.

  • 24. Kate  |  March 7, 2012 at 5:33 am

    Oh, Leo; this is WONDERFUL! Couldn't be more perfect for the situation.

  • 25. John  |  March 7, 2012 at 7:48 am

    NOM's blog does not exist to promote constructive fair and balanced debate and education on marriage equality. The blog exists for one purpose only, and that is "Please Donate To NOM Today" Testimonials from others who share the same ideology are encouraged. Anything else will be re-framed to support the key marketing objective "Fight these destroyers of traditional marriage, Please Donate To NOM Today"

  • 26. DaveP  |  March 7, 2012 at 8:23 am

    I did notice that the article is ten years old, so it may be interesting to see what he thinks these days. But I also noticed that at the time of the article he was a 41 year old man and living with his mom, and in the article Schlafly "added that homosexuality is not a big subject around (the Schlafly family)." Which sounds like one of those families that agrees to never ever ever ever talk about it… it all sounds kinda odd.

  • 27. DaveP  |  March 7, 2012 at 8:25 am

    yeah, I gotta say that was pretty brave of you, Kate. Talk about going 'into the mouth of madness'.

  • 28. Str8_Supporter  |  March 7, 2012 at 8:33 am

    That's a new term for me too :D. Thanks Leo.

  • 29. MightyAcorn  |  March 7, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Ah, we always say at our house, "it's pointless to argue with a delusional" but I think the pigeon chess analogy is better, as it also describes the leavings.

  • 30. Alan_Eckert  |  March 7, 2012 at 9:44 am

    I wonder if he still lives with his parents at 61 still.

  • 31. Alan_Eckert  |  March 7, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Dave, it's 20 years old. The 90's are drifting away from us every second =(

  • 32. Straight Dave  |  March 7, 2012 at 10:38 am

    I'm seriously hoping their very few major donors dry up now that they can't be assured of remaining anonymous anymore. Then what will NOM be able to fund? The Catholic Church in Maine and LDS out west seem to be lying low now while they lick their PR wounds. There's way too many equality "problems" breaking out all over the place this year for NOM to keep up with.

    BTW, I think we should award merit badges to anyone who gets banned by NOM. After all, it does require intelligence, a grasp of the facts, and the ability to write coherently.

  • 33. rocketeer500  |  March 7, 2012 at 11:23 am

    "BTW, I think we should award merit badges to anyone who gets banned by NOM. After all, it does require intelligence, a grasp of the facts, and the ability to write coherently. "

    I guess I won't be getting a merit badge. Seems NOM allows my posts, eventhough they are "snarky" and full of sarcasim.

    Note to self: I must try harder!

  • 34. Sheryl_Carver  |  March 7, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Just for the heck of it, I did a little online searching. It appears that he no longer lives with his mother, although there are a whole list of previous addresses that he shared with her.

    I feel sorry for him. Gotta be tough to have a bigoted mother who is so publicly a bigot. He may be in public &/or private denial about her bigotry, but it's there.

  • 35. Sheryl_Carver  |  March 7, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Don't dispair, rocketeer!

    Sometimes the moderator appears to fall asleep or otherwise allow intelligent, rational comments to slip through. And banning doesn't always mean forever, sometimes for just a given thread, or for a few days, or weeks. I have yet to figure out the algorithm they use. Oh, wait, that implies logic – oopsie!

    My goal, when I feel like playing, is to see if I can get my message across without triggering the Guardian of the Faithful Bigots.

  • 36. Bob  |  March 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    wonder if he's practising celibacy,,, would be fun to find out how many guys would admit to having sex with him,,,,,,,

  • 37. Californiaesque  |  March 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    I've been banned from NOM blog. But I can't get a merit badge on HuffPo!

  • 38. Lodi Gal  |  March 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Thanks for the recap, Dave.

  • 39. cheap christian louboutin  |  May 26, 2013 at 12:59 am

    I just like the helpful info you provide on your articles.

    I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I’m reasonably sure I’ll be told many new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!

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