Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Did They Know Justice Alito Is Male?


by Brian Leubitz

In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, the Matier and Ross column “outs” Judge Vaughn Walker:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. (SF Chronicle)

For those in the San Francisco legal community, this isn’t really much of a surprise at all. It’s not that Vaughn Walker is closeted, more that he just doesn’t talk about it in the way that Antonin Scalia doesn’t talk about his sexuality.  In 2010, we can, and should, be allowed to pursue whatever relationships, sexual or otherwise, without somebody discussing it as some sort of tawdriness.

This will most certainly make headlines in the right-wing media. The news hadn’t really filtered over there very much, so for many this will be the first time to hear about it.  But state Senator Mark Leno (D-SF) makes an excellent point:

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he’s concerned, Walker’s background is a nonissue. “It seems curious to me,” he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices’ sexual orientation “was never discussed.”(SF Chronicle)

Taking it that one step further, we all have a background. We all have some mix of racial, geographical, socioeconomic and other backgrounds. And they are all mixed up with who we are. We can’t take those labels off no matter how independent or fair you are.  Yet some will still see this as sort of bias.

So, did anybody comment about Justice Alito’s gender when he wrote the outrageous opinion in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire that said that under the Civil Rights Act women could not sue after 180 days from the discriminatory decision, even if they didn’t know about the decision for years? The decision that ultimately spurred the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act because it was so egregious.

The fact is that we can never separate ourselves from our identities. Judge Walker was randomly assigned this case, and has been reasonable througout.  But that won’t stop Andy Pugno from questioning Walker in as sly of a way as he can think of:

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”(SF Chronicle)

Why were they at significant disadvantage? Oh right, because their “witnesses” were so excited to testify and so confident that they didn’t want their faces to be shown. And because the campaign team wanted to hide the lengths that they went to exploit the fear and biases of the 2008 electorate. When it comes down to it, their weakness was their case. Prop 8 creates 2 distinct classes of people, and whether that happens in this case or down the road, ultimately that will be seen as a clear violation of the Constitution.

Tags: ,


  • 1. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:47 am

    I laughed hysterically for about 10 minutes when i heard the news. I just can't believe NO ONE talked about it or said it!

    And now I'm crying on the inside because that just is the worst thing ever to happen for our camp.

  • 2. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:38 am

    I'm rejoicing.

    Clearly Walker will be a Judge first keeping his professional life professional and his private life private.

    But on the inside we all know what prejudice is. We know how much religious bigotry has harmed us. It makes us tough, it makes us compassionate, it makes us want to be extra-fair and most of all it gives us the 'second sight' to see through falacy, 'animus', prejudice and irrationality.

    Hey, they put it out there….now they are reaping the fruit of their labors…..afterall….



  • 3. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Yeppers, exactly "Court decisions are based upon fact and not upon opinion, did anyone notice in the trial, Boies made the point with some of their witnesses, we are not interested in your opinion, but rather what do the facts show?

  • 4. Bolt  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:46 am

    How does it hurt your camp? Legal opinions are based on facts, not the judges sexuality. Are you a religious bigot infiltrator?

  • 5. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Yes Bolt, I'm a religious bigot infiltrator that's come into this blog to eat you all and kill kittens. And stuff.

    *rolls eyes*

  • 6. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  February 9, 2010 at 12:50 am

    I'm going to start commenting right here, because of the weird coinicidence. I had not checked in here yesterday, and started my daily reading with Ed Brayton's DISPATCHES FROM THE CULTURE WARS, where he has a story about a frivilous lawsuit against hate crimes laws by the Thomas More Law Society. My first thought was "wouldn't it be hilarious if the suit wound up being held before a gay judge by the 'luck of the draw.'"

    The next site I hit was Nan Hunter's HUNTER OF JUSTICE — one many of you should know, btw — and find the mention of this story. (She discusses the precedents that show there was no need for Judge Walker to recuse himself here btw. And for those who don't know of Nan, she not only wrote the (case) book on Sexual, Gender and Identity law, but she is also Chai Feldbaum's life companion.)

    I'm sure there will be discussions I want to join in on. Legally Judge Walker's sexual identity is, as Nan says, totally irrelevant. But the political and public relations aspects are much more 'problematical.' I'll wait to see what more of you say — I literally read this without reading any further comments — before addig my own remarks. (I also have a lawyer's appointment myself — house transfer to my wife — which will keep me from commenting as much as I'd like until later.)

  • 7. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I really see this, as a non-issue, at least from my perspective after reading the trial transcripts. The fact is the Prop 8 side performed so poorly for a variety of reasons –
    1. Their case was based upon mostly antiquated and specualation on the part of their witness and filings.
    2. They were out-classed by our legal team,
    3,. The evidence does not support their side in this case and never will.

  • 8. slsmith66  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:14 am

    I agree with Charles, this was the worst thing that could come out for our side. If we win it will always be because we had a "gay" judge. Not based on the actual evidence presented. Will this hurt or help our cause if we do have to take this back to the polls? That I can't answer.

  • 9. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:32 am

    I think this will help our cause because now the public stated that they are gunning for Judge Walker….Do they really think that this is going to help them get an honest ruling out of it….If I were him I would be extremely offended….they wouldn't be saying this if he was heterosexual and publicly stated that he's against Marriage Equality and LGBT Rights…they are hypocritical bigots and all comes down to me me me me…blah blah blah…lol

  • 10. Brian Leubitz  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Well, for all intents and purposes, Judge Walker's ruling matters very little. It will be appealed to the 9th Circuit, and that's where the decision will ultimately be made.

  • 11. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:12 am

    True.. however, after reading how the appeal process works, I feel they wouldn't have any good grounds to appeal Judge walkers decision if he rules in our favor. According to the info I found on the 9th circuit court website was this:

    "A litigant who files an appeal, known as an 'appellant,' must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were 'clearly erroneous.' "

    There are more details about the appeals process, and how it can go to the Supreme court, in this website:….

  • 12. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:13 am

    So if anyone goes to the website above… you can see that they probably have a long shot of winning this with all their crappy facts. LOL

  • 13. Sheryl Carver  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Thanks for posting the info & the link on the appeals process, Lo!

    Once again, the equal rights folks present facts, unlike others who shall remain nameless. 🙂


  • 14. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:50 am

    So true Lo,

    Good information. I think Walker is going to take this very very seriously! Being extra careful to base his ruling on the facts and to write his accompanying opinion so that 9th will have little or no reason to overturn.

  • 15. Brian Leubitz  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:14 am


    I'll give you the brief rundown without pulling my federal courts textbook from law school out, but suffice it to say, that Judge Walker's opinion is far from final.

    Under federal law there is an automatic appeal to the 9th Circuit. So as long as they have a non-frivolous reason to appeal, they will be heard. And they do, in fact, have a non-frivolous argument, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.

    As there are legal issues at play in the case, the court can rule "de novo" on those issues. Meaning that they can totally ignore Judge Walker's opinion on issues of law.

    As for facts of law, there is a lot of question here about what is and what isn't issues of fact vs. issues of law. As this was a bench trial, not a jury trial, issues of fact receive less weight, and the appellate court is more free to overturn the trial court.

    Not to be a pessimist here, but there's a long way to go with this one folks.

  • 16. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I am inclined to believe the opposite. The professional community will stand behind Walker and declare his orientation a COMPLETE non issue.

    No one is going to disparage him….after all, it would emphasize the reality of discrimination as well as be considered very poor conduct (like poor sportsmanship!)

    Furthermore, any court using Walker's background as a consideration in their review of the case would immediately nullify themselves and anything they said due to violation of professional ethics!

    I am reminded of the Clarence Thomas congressional review….it doesn't matter how obvious something is there are some places you just can't go!!!!

  • 17. Kyle  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:08 am

    "it doesn’t matter how obvious something is there are some places you just can’t go!!!!"

    Unfortunately, all bets are off when it comes to gay people. Don't forget, it's still socially acceptable to show bigotry against us.

  • 18. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:57 am

    That was the implication. While some discrimination is obvious and can be fought, some is not and

    "….it doesn’t matter how obvious something is there are some places you just can’t go!!!!"

  • 19. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:15 am

    One other point I wanted to make is this amounts 'liabel and slander' on the part of the SF Chronicle' – I mean outing a judge. In my view I am disgusted by such tactics being employed and this amounts to trial by the "Fourth Estate" (Journalism). I remember a time in America, when these tactics were those of the 'feeble minded'.

  • 20. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Isn't "outing" when a publication or a widely-heard media of another sort announces that someone who has taken pains to conceal their sexual orientation is gay? From the text of the OP, it sounds as if the judge isn't so much as concealing anything as not tacking up banners around town advertising the fact. Yanno, the way someone acts when their sexual preferences are a non-issue.

    What a waste of newsprint.

  • 21. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:41 am

    And that is exactly what outing is, Kay. When someone, like you, makes an issue out of something that should be and remain a non-issue.

  • 22. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Silly me… I thought that outing was dragging someone out of the closet involuntarily and publishing something they wish to keep private. Regardless, as I stated right above, I regard publishing irrelevant little factoids like that as a waste of newsprint. Or perhaps that wasn't clear to you?

  • 23. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Hey dopty-daddy…… bossies is a mompie N.A.A.F.I….I'll tell you later…<3

  • 24. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:40 am

    correction here:

    sexual orientations

  • 25. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:22 am

    David K……I agree….Whether he is Gay or not this is entirely disrespectful and an invasion of privacy….His orientation has nothing to do with the case at hand….He should sue for slander.

  • 26. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:11 am

    I am not certain there is a case for slander, but there may be a case for "D______ of character", I am sorry, can someone help me out here, my brain is not working well today. Love, David

  • 27. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Defecation…er defamation of character.

  • 28. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Thanx, I knew it was something like that.

  • 29. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:07 am

    David — slander is verbal, and 'truth is an absolute defense against libel.' I actually wish this had been brought out earlier. I'm quite sure the defense or at least someone on their team knew about this.

  • 30. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:16 am

    After calming down a bit, here are my thoughts:

    1/ Why didn't prop 8 raise this issue? Surely it would have been very, very good for their side. This is the kind of argument that would totally touch the "majority" of people and convince them it's a flawed judgement.

    –> Here we are again with the conspiracy theories: Are they trying to lose?

    2/ Is this publicization of this fact going to influence Walker in a negative way? Maybe making him fear to seem partial?

    3/ Walker is a conservative. Is he one of those right-wing gay guys that are opposed to gay marriage? When I thought he was straight, I thought he maybe had no pre-set position on the debate. But as a gay man, I can't believe he doesn't already have an opinion on the subject, it's just impossible. So?

    4/ There are only 2 comments. Is everyone at lunch, or doesn't anyone care or did everyone ALREADY knew and nobody talked about it?

    5/ How is it the media is only starting to talk about it now?

    I'm sorry, I'm confused, I feel like I need to re-read every transcript with this new information to reintepret everything… :-s

  • 31. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:18 am

    I have read every transcript from and I honestly can't see a bias on the part of the judge – this is ludacris!

  • 32. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:23 am


    Darling, take your thesaurus, calm down and when you've looked up the spelling of "ludicrous," re-read my comment. I''ve never insinuated there was a bias on his part.

  • 33. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:26 am

    I am sorry, my comment was not directed towards you, but rather towards the claim by the Newspaper based upon, what – "Inuendo" and thank you for pointing out my mispelling – I am sorry, I don't see very well anymore and sometimes, when I type it does not always come-out correctly spelled.

  • 34. Linda  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Judge Walker is a seasoned, Federal judge. He has years of experience under his belt. He has learned the craft of separating personal feelings from facts being presented. He presided over this case fairly and impartially. I have the utmost confidence that he will rule in a fair and impartial way.

    The fact that he is gay should be no more newsworthy than if he were straight. This is another desperate attempt by the propH8ers to slander the judge and to invalidate his ruling. (Obviously they know that they are going to lose).

    Let's not stoop to their level by now questioning his ethics. We had no trouble with him presiding over this case when we assumed he was straight. Why does his sexual orientation make us view him differently? Are we prejudiced, too? Are we saying that LGBT's are not capable of presiding over any court case that deals with LGBT issues? Are only straight judges able to make impartial decisions?

  • 35. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Ok ok, but

    1/ The main problem is about public's opinion, not reality

    2/ Do you sincerely argue that the fact he's gay has NO bearing at all on how he views this trial? Are you kidding me? All the witnesses talking about persecution, talking about gay history etc – do you honestly think you can say it was received the same way by a 60-something gay man who lived at a time homosexuality was illegal and by a random straight man? Judges may be impartial, but they're human beings too. Otherwise we'd have computers do the job. I'm not saying him being gay mean automatically he will rule in our favor – very possibly the exact contrary actually – but to say it makes absolutely no difference is ludicrous.

    Ultimate proof? that it was so well hidden. Obviously everybody thinks it makes a difference, otherwise gay media would have talked about it.

  • 36. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I think that if this would've been a problem, then the courts wouldn't have assigned this case to him.

  • 37. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:59 am

    It is a professional ethic….keep professional life professional and private life private.

    A judge can't be discriminated against for any reason other than legal ones. It is not illegal to be gay. It is not considered a legal conflict of interest.

    Furthermore, if Walker had recused himself on the grounds of being gay, it would have undermined his own professional standing and merit and would be frowned upon by the professional community as being legally inappropriate. Like saying it would be ok for a female judge to recuse herself because a trial concerned abortion or a black judge recusing himself in a trial involving a black male inmate escapee raping and murdering someone.

    The legal profession chooses its judges randomly for just this reason. When Pugno cries 'disadvantaged' he is implying the legal system was prejudiced against him and flawed in its methodology.

    His comments don't strike us as being anything more than bluster but much of the legal community views him as extremist making inflamatory remarks disparaging the legal system!

    He will most likely never be allowed to join the judiciary.

  • 38. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:24 am

    No, I'm sorry David, I was a bit aggressive lol

  • 39. Linda  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:18 am

    So only straight judges are capable of ruling impartially? Any claims the propH8ers make regarding Judge Walker's ruling will be put to rest simply by reading the transcripts. PropH8 lost their own case, because their movement is driven by prejudice, not law.

  • 40. slsmith66  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:26 am

    No, I believe a gay judge can be impartial. The probelm is the publics opinion.
    I just think a win by an impartial judge would prove to the public it was about the law and not personal belief.
    And if he rules against us? What will we say?

  • 41. Linda  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Again, the facts of the case will justify his ruling. We cannot run scared because we happened to get a judge who is gay. This is exactly what the other camp is hoping will happen. All they had to do is 'drop' this litle bit of information, and then step back and watch us scramble. Our reaction is what they will point to.

    "See, even the LGBT community question Walker's ability to rule impartially!"

    Don't play into their hands. This trial must remain based on the facts presented. That needs to continue to be our focus. Judge Walker's sexual orientation is a non-issue.

  • 42. Sheryl Carver  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:49 am

    That's why we are in Federal Court to overturn a bigoted law based on opinion. In this venue, it DOES NOT MATTER what public opinion is. We all know that if Prop 8 is ultimately overturned, there will be a segment of the public that will be sure there was bias/conspiracy/clear-evidence-of -the-gay-agenda behind it. Judge Walker's orientation is merely 1 of many, many red herrings they will scream about.

    Let's all take a deep breath & calm down.


  • 43. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:35 am

    The pro-8 side will grasp at any straw in order to win. They used illegal tactics during the campaign, and would be more than happy to continue to do so if it serves their purpose. In other words, it doesn't matter that we have the weight of the law on our side. It doesn't matter that we have the tide of history. It doesn't matter that we had all the experts and they had only idiots. It may indeed all boil down to the fact that they can now cry foul that Walker is gay, so they could try to get the whole trial thrown out if it doesn't go their way.

    I truly believe that Walker is unbiased as far as the law in this case, and that he will judge it on its merits, not by his personal opinion. That is what every judge is supposed to do. Unfortunately it is not always the case. Look how we already "know" the outcome of eight out of the nine Supremes if and when this case goes to SCOTUS. We "know" that regardless of the law presented, that four judges will absolutely vote against gay marriage. Their heterosexual conservative Republican bias is clear. The other four will most likely vote for us because they are considered liberal. We have only one who we are unsure about who could go either way, depending on how the winds blows that day.

    If anyone can give us a fair trial, maybe it takes someone who is gay to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that since the other side is biased against us, no matter what evidence is presented, they can't help but think our side, or that of a gay judge, would not be biased just like themselves.

  • 44. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:08 am

    The trial cannot get thrown out because Walker is gay. It was already known and he was randomly selected. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

    As for SCOTUS we do NOT know that four will definitely vote against. I think many people will be shocked to find that some of the conservatives are actually still good and honest justices. Who is being prejudiced now?!

    As for what 'they' think?….Pfftt! WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!


  • 45. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:38 am

    It is indeed true that we can reasonably predict which votes will go which way but it can no more be brought down to "heterosexual conservative Republican bias" or "homosexual liberal Democrat bias" than Judge Walker ruling against the Pro-8 side can be argued as "pro-gay bias." It's fashionable and far too easy to dismiss any judiciary that rules against you as biased and certainly a trap that the right-wing types fall into regularly. On all appeals court levels, it comes down to the particular judicial philosophy of each individual judge. Are they "textualist" (a term that's been used to describe Justice Scalia), "originalist" (the right-wing golden standard although it just sort of describes Justice Thomas), "liberal" (summarized as "the Constitution is a living and breathing document"; seems to encompass Stevens, Ginsberg, and possibly Sotomayor), "empiricist" (also the name of a philosophical system, could also be called objectivism; encompass Alito and Roberts), or "moderate" (the name usually given to the court's "swing vote", seems to integrate multiple philosophies; describes Kennedy)? Pretty much, individual philosophies are the only things that can be easily determined because it comes out in how they justify their vote; anymore, major public figures like Supreme Court justices are too clever to be caught expressing the opinion that anti-abortion laws should be struck down because doctors don't like such laws (sadly, I'm not joking) or publishing opinions that "the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect" (Dredd Scott v. Sanford, in case you didn't guess).

  • 46. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Dear Michelle and Felyx it is true that we can not predict anything…because we are not psychics….do you guys see what I'm getting at?

  • 47. slsmith66  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:36 am

    And now thinking on this some more… I'm really pissed at the SF chronicle! Why do they think they have the right to "out" someone? My fanny is really chapped by this!

  • 48. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:36 am

    As a follow-up:

    On this coming Wednesday I get to report for jury duty. As a transgender female, I can predict the future with great ease. I predict that if I do get into a courtroom and get put into the jury box for questioning that I will be summarily dismissed just because neither side would want someone like me on their trial.

    Prior to transition I served on two juries, one civil case for three weeks and a double murder case that lasted three months. Both times I was considered a good juror and did my job the way I am supposed to. I would be no different if on a trial today, but just because of who I am, they won't see it that way.

  • 49. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Keep us posted….you may find they both want you if it is a case with a gender element to it to which they both feel you could be uniquely impartial.

    (Of course you could do what my grandmother did and find out the plaintiffs name and wave to them and say Hi! Remember me?……got her thrown out every single time!)

  • 50. Stanislas  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Why would she be "uniquely impartial" ?

    Because she's trans, so she's "not really a woman"? Or is it because she's trans and therefore "a bit of both worlds"? I mean wtf. o_O

  • 51. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:04 am

    She might be perceived to have a uniquely unbiased view of gender. If it were a rape case of a man raping a woman the prosecution could see her as sensitive to vulnerabilities of those less powerful, and the defence MIGHT see her as understanding of men as having been in the form of one and therefore a more powerful juror as she is now a woman.

    What I am really saying is don't underestimate people…there are some really great people out there if you let them be.

    Just look at the homos for instance….;`P

  • 52. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that I would be accepted if called. Unlike a lot of people, I have actually embraced jury duty when called upon previously. I have never tried to get out of it or avoid it. It has always been a very interesting and enlightening experience to be a part of a trial, especially the double murder case. And if I can be accepted on a jury, that would be a pretty amazing thing for a trans female to be, because I would bet it hasn't happened very often.

  • 53. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:26 am

    I believe I do have a unique perspective on gender issues because of my being transgender. I have literally been able to see life from both the male and female perspective. It is truly amazing how different it is. I went from being the top of the heap, so to speak, as being perceived as a white male with the whole world open before me, to being a female transsexual, which is about the lowest point you can be in our society.

    As far as rape goes, I always considered that as a horrible crime, even when I was considered male by society, but because of that I knew that I would probably never have to face that sort of situation as having a male being raped is a pretty rare occurrence. Unfortunately, after my transition, I now understand full well what being raped is like for a female, because that happened to me when a doctor raped me at a hospital back in October. Even before transition, I felt there was no limit to the penalties a rapist should face legally. Believe me when I say that my opinion has only solidified now.

  • 54. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:36 am

    See?! I told you you were special. Give people a chance!

    (BTW, I think it horrible to have perspective on rape in that manner…my sincerest condolences.)

  • 55. Jon (doh!)  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:41 am

    My husband has been on a jury just recently for the first time. He is still legally female. (Female to male trans see my other post). you can't be turned down for being transexual. They have to find a reason.

    Stay strong my friend, there are a lot worse things out there!

  • 56. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:45 am

    It was certainly a perspective I never thought I would have in being raped. Last January I also had a guy try to run me over in the parking lot of my local bank. Being trans is a very difficult thing in our society.

    Which also brings up the question we often get for all of us in the LGBT community: With all the hatred and bigotry out there against us, why would anyone "choose" to be this way. I've actually heard some anti-LGBT people suggest that the only reason we "choose" this is because we are just looking for attention.

    Yeah, I loved the attention of the guy in his truck, or the doctor who raped me. Wow, how did I ever live before these wonderful new experiences!

  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Michelle….I <3 you….If you need to use my boxing skills to kick some @$$ for you let me know I will be there as fast as I can….you Goddess you!!!!

  • 58. Michelle Evans  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Actually they do not have to have a reason in every juror dismissed. The have so many chances during any specific jury selection process. During that selection they can dismiss anyone for cause–in other words they have a proven animus to the case for whatever reason. You are correct that you cannot be summarily dismissed for being trans, but they also have a certain number of people the lawyers can dismiss for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So if they don't like your attitude, or your job, or your gender, they don't have to say why, they just say good-bye.

  • 59. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Wow, Michelle, I am so sorry to hear you were raped by someone, who should have been above that detestable act. And I agree with everything you have stated about your experiences. We can only hope things will change.

  • 60. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:09 am

    If you are dismissed without any reason given then it is a good idea not to take it personally. This of course is hard to do when one feels so very self conscious but it is worth the effort. It could be nothing more than one of the lawyers feels like they are inadequate to build a case that would appeal to you…that it is their failing because of an honest lack of knowledge about trans people but not for any reasons to do with personal animus.

    Again, give people a chance. You know your value and you have to project that so that people will see through you… to the real inner you. If you spend to much time being paranoid it will encourage people to come after you!
    (I have experience in this area….as if we didn't all!)

  • 61. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:37 am

    "1/ Why didn’t prop 8 raise this issue? Surely it would have been very, very good for their side. This is the kind of argument that would totally touch the “majority” of people and convince them it’s a flawed judgement"

    – Yes, I see your point, still I doubt it will stop them from making their claims. Once again, our side may lose in the court of public opinion and I have no idea how this will affect the Judge in this case – anyone else have any ideas?

  • 62. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:23 am

    I say the effect would be positive. It could only increase his sensitivity to the issue and encourage him to be extra dilligent. (After all, why else allow 6 hr cross examinations?!)

    As for the COPO…realize that that is the same court that passed prop 8 in the first place!

    The judiciary considers the COPO but it defines and enforce the law first and formost!

  • 63. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:27 am

    I am sorry, what does COPO mean?

  • 64. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:55 am

    COPO Court of Public Opinion. Bit of a hassle to type out keep writing out lol.

  • 65. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Thanx, this must be one of my more dense days! LOL

  • 66. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Nah…not a dense day. I just made it up thinking it would be obvious. The one time I try I flub…oh well!

  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I ask this question again to the prop ha8ters:

    Who would be a better impartial Judge?…..A monkey?

  • 68. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Emphatically YES! Monkeys clearly would be better suited to judge against the defence! Then everyone would say….see! Even a monkey know what bullshit is!


  • 69. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Oh, of course not! They should appoint the M5 Multitronic System as the impartial judge. That would be quite the trial. 😀

  • 70. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Dr. Richard Daystrom was a devout religious fanatic. That is why we have compassionate commanders and judges like Kirk and Vaghn-Walker who will always take a gamble on humanity!!!

    (Yeah!!! Didn't think any of us new generation would know what you were talking about huh! LOL PWND!!!!!)

  • 71. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Of course if they did do that then they would have to use 'The Good Book 3.0' and the interpretive works of Reverend Preacherbot as evidence!

    Say, wouldn't it be cool if at your church they just had computerized confession where you could get a kewpie doll with absolution? THAT would be some real good religion there!

  • 72. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Are you really a starship commander, or just a space cadet?

  • 73. Kay Moore  |  February 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Actually, Felyx, I counted on someone knowing what I was referring to. What would have been really incredible is if someone had known the name of the episode in which the M5 appeared ("The Ultimate Computer") to see my deeper meaning. I do indeed think the ultimate computer would be a good impartial judge because it has no empathy or compassion.

  • 74. Kay Moore  |  February 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    I am, indeed, Commander Shepard of the SR-2 Normandy, Hero of the Skyllian Blitz, Savior of the Citidel, unifier of the geth, and destroyer of the Collectors. Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!

  • 75. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Ok…it's on Kay!

    The Ultimate Computer

    Plot: Crazy insane ideologue creates an all encompassing program of algorithms executed by a computer with the mandate to run everybodies lives.

    Computer gets crazy and starts killing people in a full scale unwarranted attack WITHOUT REASON!

    It is revealed that the 'pure perfect programming' was tainted by the Dr.'s own philosophy and thought patterns, 'engrams'.

    At the height of the irrational attack on innocent people the Dr. is hauled away ranting about how his way is still the right way and that those who are being harmed, injured and killed are not as important as allowing the computer to defend itself. After all, the computer is innocent in all this and is just trying to defend itself against what it THINKS is a perceived threat to its well being!

    Kirk tricks the computer into defeating itself using logic and obvious facts. The computer, locked into a loop of its own stupidity, is then deactivated by other crewmembers.

    The ship is temporarily disabled and unable to communicate but Kirk insists on not raising his defenses thus causing the attacked ships to stand down on the premise that Kirks crew is not the ones causing the problem.

    When asked why Kirk did what he did he responds that he has faith in humanity.

    The Irony Kay…the Irony. You, and I quote, "think The Ultimate Computer would be a good impartial judge because it has no empathy or compassion." Even thought it has a paranoid philosophy that allows it to justify 'impartially' harm and murder others who have no intention of harming it.

    I am sorry Kay….your 'deeper meaning' is all too clearly blatantly ASININE!!!

    Why don't you just come out and say it….you wanted Maggie Gallegher in the judges chair!!!

    Clearly an empathetic compassionate competent gay judge is just not capable of being impartial…no we need a psychotic paranoid computer corrupted by a disturbed philosophy to be REALLY impartial!!!

    I apologized for saying this, and understand it is just satyre, but you are an F-ing Retard!


    I rest my case.

  • 76. Kay Moore  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    I know the plot of the episode, Felyx. I'll point out to you that your reasoning on the ultimate computer as an ideal impartial judge is severely flawed because you failed to recognize the difference between The Ultimate Computer and the ultimate computer. The first refers to th M-5 in the episode of the same name; the second refers to a vague conceptual machine that could be rightfully considered the most powerful computer in existence. As you know, at the present level of computer programming, a computer is incapable of actual intelligence as we understand the term; it is essentially a binary machine, relying on trillions of true/false switches to make a decision. As such, any judgement rendered by a computer would be a perfectly impartial application of the law because the computer would be incapable of anything other than perfect mathematical justice. It would render an inhumane decision but it would be unbiased because an equation cannot be biased: given a certain set of inputs, it can only yield a single result.

    Sorry you had to go through all those hysterics but you should have recognized that little grammatical things like capitalization can totally change the meaning of a sentence.

  • 77. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    ZOMG! You got PWND! and now you are gibbering nonsense.

    Please Kay! There is shame in giving up and just admitting you got PWND!!!….you will feel better for it afterwords.

    Impartionally yours (so long as it is a sincere intellectual issue),


    PWNER of the Ignorant but their Ignorance

  • 78. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    'PWN the Ignorant but not their Ignorance' – Moganjesus Ganja

  • 79. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:44 am

    A bit hard to get PWNED if the PWNAGE is based on someone thoroughly discrediting a claim you didn't make. PWN me on what I actually said and I shall bow down and worship you accordingly, Felyx.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm


  • 81. Dave in Altadena  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:39 am

    And if Judge Walker had been straight, then what? He could just as easily be insinuated to rule from a heterosexist, str8 bias if he decides to uphold Prop 8.

    The Prop 8 people will easily be made to look still more ridiculous if they try to use this. What is the judiciary supposed to be to ensure neutrality? Bisexual? Asexual? Hermaphrodite?

    Whoever loses is going to whine and cry and then appeal no matter what. This is a strawman's argument if either side tries to bring it up. It is scurrilous and cheap sensationalism on the part of the SF Chronicle. And irresponsible of them.

  • 82. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Yes, and the real problem is he has been outed by the newspaper in this case and the court of public opinion will run rampant with speculation about his ruling.

  • 83. jayjaylanc  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    I'm not sure just how relevant the court of public opinion is in this case. No court case is going to make the people who hate us love us. Brown v. BoE didn't instantly make people in the South feel all brethrenly toward African-Americans. You only need to google some photos of the Little Rock integration to see that.

    And, personally, I've gotten past the need to make them all love us. Nobody loves everybody. Nobody is loved by everybody. I don't demand their love. I only demand that my rights be respected.

  • 84. David Kimble  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    jayjaylanc, I agree the court of public opinion is really not relevant to this case, but once the seeds of doubt and the aspersions have been cast – the Prop8 side will use this as a means to claim bias on the part of the judge and it could also fire-up their base to get them more money for the appeals to this case. It really is a non-issue, I concur, but never under-estimate our foes.

  • 85. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:50 am

    What does "hermaphrodite" have to do with "bisexual" and "asexual" or any kind of sexual orientation?

    Hermaphrodite is an old word wor intersex. Intersex people can be gay, straight, bisexual or asexual.

    I know it's not the point here, but I think we shouldn't say the things we reproach straight people to say.

  • 86. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Prop 9 – A judge shall be defined as being only a man and a woman.

    (Seems as reasonable and logical an ammendment as Prop 8!)

  • 87. Bolt  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Full steam ahead! Annihilate proposition 8! Loudly and proudly! Let the bigots eat their own shit!

  • 88. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I mean seriously…these same things had to have been the same case with Civil Rights, Interracial Marriage, and Women's Rights….Oh wait No that was all due to that of the opposite appearance…..For Civil rights it was a white man, for women's right it was a white man….so what they are saying is that only white heterosexual men can make decisions under the law….WOW!!!!! Racist and Homophobic…they just keep on digging themselves into a deeper whole.

  • 89. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:07 am

    To quote from Constance Baker Motley — quoted on Nan Hunter's blog that I mentioned in my first comment:

    Defendant further seeks my disqualification on the ground that I “strongly identified with those who suffered discrimination in employment because of sex or race”, and offers as support for this “identification” an eloquent quote, attributed to me, on the crippling effects of discrimination. …

    It is beyond dispute that for much of my legal career I worked on behalf of blacks who suffered race discrimination. I am a woman, and before being elevated to the bench, was a woman lawyer. These obvious facts, however, clearly do not, ipso facto, indicate or even suggest the personal bias or prejudice required by [the recusal statute]. The assertion, without more, that a judge who engaged in civil rights litigation and who happens to be of the same sex as a plaintiff in a suit alleging sex discrimination on the part of a law firm, is, therefore, so biased that he or she could not hear the case, comes nowhere near the standards required for recusal. Indeed, if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex…

    Nowhere in their affidavits do defense counsel or defendant indicate that I have any relationship or personal association or interest in this litigation. They merely point to my general background and the obvious facts of my race and sex as evidence of extrajudicial prejudice. … [N]one of the facts included in the affidavits … are sufficient, under the statutes, for disqualification. Defendant's motion for disqualification is, therefore, denied.

  • 90. slsmith66  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Not every one is suprised. I found this article.

    "…The moment I saw the photo of Walker in the BAR, my gaydar's bells and whistles went off. Once I was allowed into the courtroom, took a seat and observed Walker in action, I was convinced the judge was a gay man.

    His chipper demeanor, and low-key humor that several times set off loud laughter from lawyers and spectators, gave me the feeling Walker would make an excellent entertainer at a gay piano bar for refined mature gentlemen.

    Not only that, I also had an incredible sense of elation, being an eyewitness to homo-history in the making and because the bold and radical lawsuit, if successful, would be a giant leap forward for the gay community. For an excellent report on the hearing, read the BAR account.

    While I lack solid proof Walker is indeed gay, there are other factors leading me to believe he's gay. I've heard from two respected veteran LGBT community reporters that he is considered "family". One reporter said it in an email, the other mentioned it as fact over the phone."

  • 91. Charles  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Ok that was absolutely PRICELESS. How smug must the blogger feel now, lol…

  • 92. Deborah  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:57 am

    The major problem with this info will be in the fundraising letters the pro-Prop 8 groups will send out to their supporters after they lose this first round. We all know they love to cry foul and play the victim whenever anything doesn't go exactly their way.

    However slyly Pugno plays this, every conservative group allied with the pro-Prop 8 people will be using this info as a fundraising cash-cow for the 9th District appeal.

  • 93. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:02 am

    But then what can they do in the 9th circuit other then try to explain why the f-ed it in the first place…I mean No knew witnesses, no evidence to rationally support they're claims, and videos ant statements that clearly show discrimination on their part as well as the age old arguments…"Its in the Bible"…..They really dropped the ball on spending all that money on those stupid little commercials.

  • 94. Deborah  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I agree the money the right-wing hate machine will be able to gin up over this won't ultimately effect the 9th Circuit opinion. I just hate to see NOM, ProtectMarriage et. al. have another angle to use to line their pockets. It's as much greed as homophobia with them. They've built a lucrative multi-national corporation out of anti-gay animus.

  • 95. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Yes, I can already hear their chorus announcing the judge was biased, because he's gay, we say! Their anathema will echo through the pews, like a "Hallelujah chorus" challenging them to give…give…and give some more! We need the money to fight "Gay Agenda".

  • 96. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:35 am

    One should be careful about 'crying foul' as one would cry wolf ; after awhile 'playing' the victim…. becomes more than a game!!!

    (Read the BFund brief….religion is about to get it's collective ass handed to it!)

  • 97. Deborah  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:01 am

    'Scuse me, make that 9th CIRCUIT.

  • 98. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I just went and read the daily kos story – thank you for referencing it – I have little doubt the story will be picked-up by the right-wing blogs and used in an attempt to discredit what Judge Walker rules (assuming he rules in our favor). I am still in shock that they could "out" a Federal Judge just to win an argument. The daily kos story has the same rancor and epithets used in the SF Chronicle story. It is disgusting for me to think of the implications of what they have done.

  • 99. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:41 am

    What they have just done is prove that being gay does not have any bearing on the ruling and that there is not really a defence of marriage so much as a clear prejudice against gays.

  • 100. Alan E.  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Also, the final decision doesn't lie with Walker. It is at least the 9th Disctrict Court of Appeals, if not SCOTUS, that will make the decision. Walker allowed in a lot of evidence on both sides (although restricting an entire book when it wasn't necessary). He also called out Blankenhorn, but allowed him to testify to give some benefit of a doubt.

  • 101. Alan E.  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Pugno is still calling foul on the broadcast rulings.

  • 102. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Why should he still be crying foul??!! They won that issue; they get to hide their ignorance and bigotry from the cameras. Thank God for all the dedicate people who have implemented other means of smoking these retards out.

  • 103. Sheryl Carver  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:57 am

    I'm guessing it's because they have nothing else to write about. Gotta keep the fear & other negative emotions running high among the faithful. Otherwise, they might actually have time to calm down & consider the whole thing from a rational & fair-minded standpoint. Heaven forbid!

  • 104. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:09 am

    You say heaven forbid….but just remember who is claiming that they are going there….with that kind of attitude (their) Heaven may very well forbid!

  • 105. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Hey David K any everybody else…. Is it me or is this whole thing that Andy PUG-NO and the prop ha8ters are shouting out is 100% reminiscent of :

    WITCH!!!!….WITCH!!!…..WITCH!!!!…..just replace the words and you have:

    GAY!!!……GAY!!!!!………GAY!!!!……I am utterly offended.

  • 106. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Yes, exactly Ronnie. Except now they have outed the Judge in this case. And I am not all that certain he is indeed gay.

  • 107. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Same as nobody actually knew that all those people where witches…right?……RIGHT???….lol

  • 108. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:48 am

    yes, I agree, Ronnie!

  • 109. Warner  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:21 am

    ""WITCH!!!!….WITCH!!!…..WITCH!!!!…..just replace the words and you have:

    GAY!!!……GAY!!!!!………GAY!!!!……I am utterly offended.


    … it got better.

  • 110. John  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:24 am

    So, why do gays burn?

  • 111. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Duh…because they are so HOT!


  • 112. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Because we stay out in the sun too long!……..bwaaaaaa!!!

  • 113. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Yeah, I caught that too. As I understand there were no cameras, except for the court, as used in "judicial review".

  • 114. slsmith66  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:22 am

    This is going to be a question more then anything. I've read that Judge Walker ruled against the LGBT community once before in the Gay Olympics copyright infringment trial. I don't know enough about that case, but wouldn't this information have come out durring that time?

  • 115. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:38 am

    True slsmith66….
    Yes he did but in his defense it was a copyright in name only, which is illegal….the same thing happened to Rocco Dispitio(the chef) … the name he wanted to use for a restaurant in NYC was similar to another….and same when a mens underwear designer called his company "Victor's Secret"…Victoria's Secret sued based on copyright infringements.

  • 116. slsmith66 (aka Shell  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I guess my biggest question was why he wasn't "outed" then.

  • 117. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:45 am


  • 118. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:14 am

    I dunno, may it wasn't politically prudent to do so at that time?

  • 119. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:43 am

    I think it was because they Gay Olympics wasn't about rights…and now it is…so now not only do they want to label him as ac activists judge they want to point out that he's a Gay activist judge……WTF is the diff…..Oh I know:

    1: Is only straight and entitled to all rights under the law…and

    2: The other is gay and only entitled some rights under the law…..

    Like I said….Hypocritical discriminatory Bigots!!!!

  • 120. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:43 am

    As far as the Prop 8 appeals process goes if we win at this level, they have barely a case with the 9th Circuit.

    According to the US Federal Courts website:
    "A litigant who files an appeal, known as an 'appellant,' must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were 'clearly erroneous.' "

    Here is a link to how the appeals process works from the US Federal Courts website:….

    No matter what these ppl try to do after Judge Walker's ruling (assuming he rules in our favor based on the facts), they have no case.

  • 121. Stanislas  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:56 am

    "must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case."

    –> Judge Walker made the legal error of saying broadcasting would be allowed –> It scared out our precious witnesses who were SO afraid for their lives –> We lost and it's, like, totally, unfair, whiny whine whine.

    Why else do you think they haven't let this go since day 1?

  • 122. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:04 am

    So I say to them…how come it didn't scare our witnesses? We're the ones trying to repeal a "majority vote" here, who have been afraid of our lives all along. With or without their witnesses, their case is shit lol.

  • 123. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Our witnesses were experts Lo. Real ones. Real experts don't have to hide.

    Moreover most of their witness WERE our witnesses.
    (That really doesn't haveanything to do with it, I just think is hilarious to keep mentioning it! Hehehe!)

  • 124. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Actually in a way it is like our side said 'No fair!' You get back here and let us make fools of you like you promised in the depositions!

  • 125. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:41 am


  • 126. Jon (doh!)  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Thank you for that Lo….I was beginning to think no one liked my humor!

  • 127. Stanislas  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:49 am


    No no you don't understand. Defense experts were not afraid because it is a well known fact that straight bashing is a regular occurrence! Haven't you heard of all the things that happened during the campaign?? A pro-8 person had their Yes sign STOLEN from their lawn!!! And people sent email hate!! Don't you understand how GRAVE and DANGEROUS the situation is for Christian middle class straight whites in this country??

  • 128. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:56 am

    I didn't know that there were still any Christian middle class straight white still in this country….There must be a whole lo of inbreeding then…yeah?

  • 129. Lo  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:26 am

    lol "GRAVE and DANGEROUS". yes, they are definitely under persecution b/c of their lawn signs lol.

  • 130. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    I find lawn Gnomes highly offensive to little people…anybody else?

  • 131. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:53 am

    By the way, Ronnie, can we get our anthem out again? I really like the "Gay Anthem" you posted yesterday.

  • 132. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Yessss!!!…Ok hold On I want to make it good!

  • 133. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Did anybody else notice the voices are there but not there….I love it!….I love Hype!!!!….good job! ? I mean….right?…..RIGHT?

  • 134. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Yeppers, it was great! LOL

  • 135. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:27 am

    OK here is a new blast for all of you trackers out there.

    SNAP!!…SNAP!! by Ronnie Mc..<3…(ENJOY)

    G to the M to the K.O.G. to the K….We Queer Folk are here to stay….LGBT and Our Straights….yell PUG-NO and friends…yall cooked your goose!….Like Bristol P…. your case is loose!…..Bigotry will not be allowed to discriminate…..your God will open his pearly gate…To Me and maybe you and my dog too….Your beliefs are fine by me…as long as I can say "I Do" Jamie!….A Swatzy Troll can't out swash me…because my swagger is as good as Kathy G…..Yall lost Anne Hathaway and family….if yall don't change you'll have no body…..The Mormons can't contest because of their sordid past of polygamy…..and some straights have sex like Kyle and Tommy….You kill and you bash….you simply should have a curly mustache…..Gina and Jenn have kids just like you….So STFU and join them at the zoo….Melissa was Mark and now Carly is Clark…So don't ha8te cause science and biology all agree, not all yall can procreate…. Equality for all is the only call…for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….you just can't stop the Rainbow of Equality with your ugly sappiness ….I'm seeing love More and more not Moore to bore….Bigots be gone you really bore me,….al these true Humans and Americans adore me!!!!!!!…..SNAP!!!….SNAP!!!!

  • 136. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    °-° In which it is conclusively demonstrated that it's the Cheshire Cat's world… we just live in it.

  • 137. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    hoesit?…mal…. moegoe

  • 138. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Ronnie, I can see how you wound up on the cheer squad. Your off-the-cuff improvs are very good!


  • 139. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    Thank you fiona64….I figured something out last night..a little Byrd told me that at around 12am eastern time is peak trolling hour……I got my last dig in if you saw the video that I dedicated to David K….I'm done in that arena…I don't come to this website to be harassed…. literally and physically I am sick to my stomach….I mean this is not the website or blog for that crap to be done…..Some LGBT teen is going to come here and read that garbage and might lead them to suicide…I hope that doesn't happen..I mean obviously ignoring doesn't work either.

  • 140. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Ronnie, I wholeheartedly understand your position. The people who come here and say hateful things don't stop to think that there are people out there reading and not commenting … LGBT and straight alike. We all know that LGBT youth have a 70 percent higher suicide rate than straight youth, and that the cause is social stigma. It was discussed in depth during the trial, and there is a lot of material out there. People who write hateful things like what we have seen here, no matter how much they try to pretty up the language, should be ashamed of themselves. What those people write may be the thing that pushes some young person over the edge completely.

    One of the reasons I make a point of sharing good, scientific information to combat the nonsense is that a) there may be someone out there who is kind of on the fence about marriage equality and who can be reached with that kind of data. Another reason that I post is so that, maybe, that same LGBT young person will realize that not all straight people think they are gross and disgusting and unworthy of love the way our resident trolls want them to feel. Of course, the trolls always try to pretend that isn't it, and quote Mohandas Ghandi's "love the sinner, hate the sin" (which they seem to think is in their Bible for some reason — it isn't). But really? That is how they feel about LGBT people … even the ones they claim are their "friends."

    It is abundantly clear to me that these people have never been seriously depressed or, in fact, had any real problems in their lives. Their lack of empathy makes me pity them. So much potential is lost when young people are taught to hate themselves … that they aren't "good enough" to have equality under the law, let alone protection from crimes against them based solely on prejudice and fear-based hatred.

    I think their lives must be pretty small when there is so little room for love and kindness in their hearts, don't you?

    Love from your 'dopty-mom,

  • 141. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:07 am

    So true dopty-mom….<3

  • 142. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Thanks, Ronnie! That was great.

  • 143. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:32 am


  • 144. Randy  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:38 am

    As an obsessed spectator from the other side of the country, and someone not of the legal world, I gotta say….I never saw that coming. I don't know what the Prop 8 side will do, but I have no doubts they are scrambling to see how, or even if they should use this information. From a story stand point, it makes a riviting trial even more so.

  • 145. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:43 am

    I dunno that it even matters.

  • 146. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:44 am

    I agree Randy…I'm in Jersey and I was like WHAT?!!!

  • 147. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:47 am

    OK, so now I am really confused…what was the question?

  • 148. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:54 am

    I think what Randy was getting at is that If Judge Walker is Gay that it was as much of a shock and just as scandalous as Palin running on a conservative platform with ho for a daughter….lol…am I right Randy?

  • 149. Randy  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Yes Ronnie, and what a shock it was. It was totally unexpected. If this were a movie I would almost scream at the screen…."oh, come on now!" Some of Prop 8's more shrill mouth pieces are calling foul and demanding he step down. I totall agree that this should be a non-issue. I can't wait to see if it's made into an issue.

  • 150. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:11 am

    If this were a movie I would almost scream at the screen….”oh, come on now!”
    Thanx, that was priceless!

  • 151. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    OK, thanx for the explanation – now things are definitely cleared-up for me – at least temporarily! I get confused easily – LOL!

  • 152. James Sweet  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:03 am

    I'm pretty sure only an asexual person can properly adjudicate this case.

  • 153. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:14 am

    The question is, can they be getting oral when they do it?….

    Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!!

  • 154. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Ok so this is an interesting video…please watch the whole thing…. near the end is where it gets good and at the whole root of what we are saying about their discrimination.

  • 155. Marko Markov  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:06 am

    This is brilliant! Here are two more 😀

  • 156. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:16 am

    "Hell is eternal…..Just like your marriage is supposed to be"…hahaha…… I Love it!….I Love Hype!

  • 157. Randy  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:39 am

    "…….you're not dead yet."…BRILLIANT!

  • 158. Kathleen  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Just to keep our facts straight here (no pun intended)..

    Walker didn't preside as a judge over the case involving the use of the name "Gay Olympics." It was during his time as a private attorney; he represented the United States Olympic Committee when it sued over use of the name.

    Also, despite news reports stating otherwise, this wasn't a copyright suit. You can't copyright a title/name. If it was an intellectual property suit, it would have been a trademark action. However, the suit was brought as a violation of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, part of the United States Code, which gave the US Olympic Committee certain exclusive rights to the use of the name "Olympics" and similar. It was in essence, an expanded trademark right.

    If you haven't gotten your fill of reading legal documents with this case 🙂 you can read the ruling in the Gay Olympics case at:

  • 159. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Thank you Kathleen…I knew I was missing something about that case……I studied it in Business law as well as Ethics but that was like 3 years ago…I had the basics at the top of my head.,,but couldn't remember the details.

  • 160. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Yes, thank you Kathleen BTW was Walker a part of those proceedings – I am wondering only since he was involved in the lower trial case.

  • 161. Kathleen  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:17 am

    @ David: Walker is listed as an attorney in the appeal in front of the 9th Circuit, argued in June, 1985. I don't see him listed in the Supreme Court case. It's not unusual to use different attorneys for a case in front of the Supremes. As a bit of curious trivia, I DO see listed among the attorney in the SC case "Edward T. Colbert." I'm pretty sure that's Stephen Colbert's brother. I know his brother is an intellectual property attorney in DC.

  • 162. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Excellent info!

    Just because you are gay doesn’t mean you have to side always with certain gay related issues….after all, I fully support your right to get married since the bible does not specifically prohibit it…but if you are two dudes then you shouldn’t be allowed to actually sleep with each other as you might do with a woman. The Bible is crystal clear on this.

  • 163. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:30 am

    "Isn't it the first cardinal rule of perm maintenance that you are forbidden to wet your hair for at least 24 hours after getting a perm at the risk of deactivating the ammonium thioglycolate?"


  • 164. Stanislas  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:09 am

    "but if you are two dudes then you shouldn’t be allowed to actually sleep with each other as you might do with a woman"

    Well that's easy. I just won't put my penis in my husband's vagina, right? Oh. Wait.

  • 165. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:47 am


    I mentioned this in a previous post on the religious article.

    I also stated that the mob of men in Sodom were trying to rape the two guests and therefore this is a clear indication that loving commited relationships between two men are CONDEMNED by God. (Do take any trips to NE…I am predicting killer meteor showers to wipe out several states there in exactly several years from now.)

    You will all be sorry when you see that I am right!

  • 166. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    The Bible also says “Thall shall not judge”….but they Loooove to do that…yeah? and “Do onto others as you want done onto yourself”….so as they are discriminating against us we should do the same to them…but no that is unconstitutional you know because we’re Gay?

    “We’re you got in the shower?”…lol

  • 167. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout! Great, thanks, Ronnie!

  • 168. Kathleen  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Looks like it actually went to the Supreme Court:…

  • 169. Deborah  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:43 am

    What's particularly annoying about the implication behind the right wing talking points (and these same tired arguments were trotted out for the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination) is the assumption that only white, straight, Christian males can be impartial.

    So in the civil rights context, nothing is ever really discrimination until it's obvious to a white, straight, Christian male. Everybody else will be suspected of subjective bias.

  • 170. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:49 am

    I mean Honestly what are they going to do if this many people stop being peaceful….The power is not in political allies(yet)…it's in our numbers (Gay and Straight)….You think about that!

  • 171. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    And you know who YOU are…..kisses!!!!!!!…. <3

  • 172. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Let's be realistic we will never stoop to their level of extreme violence, but like Lt. Dan Choi said,"Here's the message, We WILL NEVER Shut Up, Don't ever doubt us!"

    We will only get louder!…..and loudeR!!…..and loudER!!!….and louDER!!!!….and loUDER!!!!!…..and lOUDER!!!!!!……and LOUDER!!!!!!!!!!

    Until all are EQUAL under the law!!!!!

  • 173. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:03 am

    If the Prop 8 D-I's were at a disadvantage in their case it was through their own incompetence, not anything Judge Walker said or did. Their "disadvantage" is a direct result of their own self-righteous ignorance of simple facts and their inordinate amount of twisting truth. Yet they will try their damnedest to blame Judge Waler in any way they can. I believe this is part of why Judge Walker is being even more impartial, and even more cautious with this case. He is doing everything he can to nullify all of their ranting and raving for the appeal that they will obviously fly to file.

  • 174. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Yes, but don't think for a minute the Prop8 side won't raise a stink, when they lose.

  • 175. rpx  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what I call Divine Inervention. Apparently God does indeed love GLBT's 🙂 I don't beleive this was random I feel a helping hand in how this ended up in Judge Walkers court. I am not aware of any Bi Judges so this would either be heard by a gay judge or a straight judge. Just think what could have happened, this could be heard by a Judge who is an ex-marine married to a Mormon who was a former Baptist before he converted to Catholicism.

    This can be thought of as either Divine Intervention on our part or Rightious Retribution on their part, either way it IS good for us. I give a rats a** what public opinion is about the Judge being gay, I only care about his decision. I gotta think that it was pretty easy for him to relate to the evidence and testimony. He is a professional so he will make a decision based on the evidence, and not any personal bias, and our trophy team of lawyers out evidenced the defense.

    Pugno said he knew Judge Vaughn is gay but did not make an issue of it. Really how could they? If they objected to Judge Vaughn then our side would have objected to any judge who was hetrosexual. This would be a zero sum game.

    Ha ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Ho He He he He, ROFLMFAO
    Maggie must be very frustrated adn that make me oh so happy 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • 176. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:11 am

    ZOMG!!! Too funny!! I can just hear it now….

    "God help us, they are everywhere! We're surrounded at every bend! They are out to get us no matter where we go or what we do! They are going to destroy us and everything we stand for! It is literally the end of (our) world!"


  • 177. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:13 am

    The GAYZ are coming! The GAYZ are coming!


  • 178. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Or better yet…..

    My God! My God! Why have you forsaken us?!!!


  • 179. Callie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I just read this and seriously, why the hell should it matter? Of course, it won't matter to our camp but it'll damn sure mean everything to the H8ers. I know gay people who, if given the chance, would side with the H8ers and tell us to go back to our gay ghettos and one-night stands where we belong because we're gay and gays aren't supposed to be married or have kids or be a part of society. And I also know straight people who are so liberal about sex and sexuality that they might as well live in a free love commune in the mountains. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean one is going to decide law based on their sexuality. A good justice will decide based on the law and it just so happens that we have the 14th amendment. Of course, the other side will totally ignore it and say Vaughn made this decision to further the "homosexual agenda."

  • 180. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:45 am

    You are so right, Callie. And there is one of those in my own house. In my house we have two gay couples and two lesbian dogs. When I tried to talk to a member of the younger couple about this case and it's importance, he gave the same tired argument about the "majority" voting that the porp h8ers gve, totally ignoring the fact that the totl voter turnout was nowhere near a majority of the popluation of California. He claims he wants to marry the man he is with, but his actions when this case is mentioned lead me to believe that he doesn't want marriage equality. Therefore, I don't even talk to him about this. As a matter of fact, the younger two are at a friends house watching the super bowl pretending they are macho men, when both of them have enough swish in their walk to be female impersonators.

  • 181. Stanislas  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:58 am

    From the Tam/Boies dialogue:

    B: You say here that the City of SF is under the rule of homosexuals. Do you believe that?

    T: Yes.

    B: Who?

    T: Tom Ammiano was supervisor.

    B: Was the mayor homosexual?

    T: I don’t think so.

    B: I don’t think so either.

    ——–> Now we know what we know, it's really funny, isn't it?


    W: yes?

    T: …………..

    B: Thought so.

    W *inside* : LOL

  • 182. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  February 7, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Does anybody know if CB$ aired the anti-abortion commercial in the Super Bowl? I heard it might have been something else from even that, something about one of those de-gaying places.

  • 183. slsmith66 (aka Shell  |  February 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I boycotted the superbowl because of the Tim Tebow commercial. First time in years I've missed it. That organization that paid for the commercial is well known for donating to causes that are anti-gay. Not to mention the fact that CBS wouldn't air the gay dating site ad.

  • 184. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    They did indeed air it. I don't know if it was the original ad they planned to air or not (there were *numerous* petitions and campaigns asking that it not be aired at all). Abortion was not mentioned. There were a few lines like "I'm so glad you're my mom" and "Don't worry about me son, I'm tough," followed by a screen with a graphic that said "For the full Tebow story, visit"

  • 185. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Here's the Ad that was banned from the 2010 Super bowl

    "CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," the rejection letter said, according to Fox. "Moreover, our Sales Department has had difficulty verifying your organization's credit status."

    B.S……Like Budweiser commercials are any moralistic….Bigots!!!

  • 186. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 2:38 pm

  • 187. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    This isn't the only one; they also refused the United Church of Christ ad, which specified that it welcomes LGBT people in its congregation, on the grounds that they do not accept so-called advocacy ads.

    I suspect that they re-edited the Tebow ad, since abortion was not mentioned *specifically,* after the mountain of protest mail started arriving. It's crap, of course, one way or the other — if you don't take advocacy ads, refuse all of them.


  • 188. Kathleen  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Pardon me while I get on my soap box. I don’t do this often.

    I used to be a member of the Carpenter’s Union. There are still very few women in the construction trades, but when I joined in 1979, I was the only female member of my local in Santa Barbara. One year when our contract expired and some of the contractors wouldn’t sign new agreements with our union, we went on strike. I was shocked at how few young carpenters were willing to walk picket lines and how quickly they were willing to go to work for non-union companies until the strike was resolved. I was a single parent, supporting two children, so it wasn’t as though I was immune to the financial hardships of the strike. At the time, I realized that people just didn’t understand the struggle that had gone on in the past for the right to unionize – the people who had literally died in order to gain representation for working men and women. It struck me at the time, that part of the apprenticeship of people in the trades should be an educational component where members of unions learned the history of the labor struggle.

    I tell this story because I believe knowing about history is critical to an informed citizenry and it is particularly important that the history of minority groups be told. When the time comes that children in school study the history of LBBT people, along with the study of other minority groups who have experienced discrimination and bigotry in this country’s past and present, there will be a greater appreciation for the significance of moments in history like we’re witnessing now.

    And I’m so tired of this argument about “but if ss couples can marry, then my children will be told in school that being gay is okay.” Damned right! That’s exactly the message that children SHOULD be taught.

    Okay… and I step down and go eat my dinner.

  • 189. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Kathleen, I commend you for getting up on your soapbox. In fact, this forum, I feel is the perfect place for all of us to hone our skills at being on the soapbox. In fact, anytime you want to come out to North Carolina an climb up on your soapbox, please let me know so that we can get the Crown Coliseum in Fayetteville for you. And bring anybody you can with you. the mor LGBTQQI's we get who are willing to get up on their soapbox, the better!

  • 190. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Yeah God forbid there become a LGBT History Month…..I suggest October…
    1. Matthew Shepard (RIP)
    2. Halloween – – enough said
    3. Columbus Day- – It's a new world

  • 191. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Ronnie, you are keeping me in stiches – thanks!

  • 192. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    no problem…lol

  • 193. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    "Damned right! That’s exactly the message that children SHOULD be taught." Touche – I couldn't agree more. We are part of society too and if it offends them, then so be it! I grow weary of them and the way they cherry-pick every thing they say from the Bible. While I am not an athiest, I gave-up on religion a long time ago, due to their narrow interpretation of scripture. The Mormons claim the right to visions and much of their religious beliefs are based upon visions and 'divine guidance' – I mean who annoited them the "God-listeners?"

  • 194. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    You might consider reading the book _Unchristianity_…very enlightening!

  • 195. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    Since it is Sunday, I would like to share what my 10yo second cousin. Daughter to Caucasian Christian Mother and African American Christian Father (She texted me this today, enjoying her new cell phone):

    God is Good, God Is Great, Gay or Straight, he does not Hate, So lets eat up and and clean that Plate!

    How cute is that?

  • 196. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Ronnie, sounds like your 10 year old second cousin is a very smart young lady. Who knows she may even grow up to be POTUS one day!

  • 197. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    True, that is possible…She changes all time, first it was ballet, then track, then soccer, then gymnastics, Now she's on this Karate kick(pun intended)… She kicked a boy's @$$ and now she's hooked…..her biggest dream right now is two marry a Jonas Brother…lol

  • 198. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Yes, that is so adorable and I remember something about "out of the mouths of babes…"

  • 199. dieter  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Monday, February 08, 2010
    This Week In Holy Crimes

    Over the last seven days…

    California: Pastor Martin Richter arrested for sexually assaulting a 13 year-old girl. There may be other victims.
    New Jersey: Pastor Gregor Woodcuff arrested on multiple counts of sexually assaulting an underage girl.
    California: Pastor Clevon Little accused of rape. Osbourne has a previous conviction for the same crime.
    Minnesota: Pastor John Erbele pleads guilty to soliciting prostitution.
    New York: Pastor Humberto Cruz convicted on ten counts of child molestation.
    Delaware: Pastors Jamaar and Rhonda Manlove charged with 21 felony counts of mortgage fraud, possibly the largest such case in state history.
    Missouri: Pastor Wayne Hudson charged with child molestation.
    Alabama: Pastor Ralph Lee Aaron receives multiple life sentences for molesting four pre-teen boys and creating child pornography.
    New Hampshire: Pastor Timothy Dillmuth charged with failing to report child abuse.
    Louisiana: Pastor Burcham Warren pleads guilty to molesting an 11 year-old girl.
    Minnesota: Pastor Danial Barnes sentenced to 11 years in prison for assault, burglary, and kidnapping.
    Maryland: Father Thomas Bevan charged with multiple counts of molesting boys.
    Wisconsin: Father Edmund Donkor-Baine charged with sexual assault.
    Pennsylvania: Father Ralph Johnson charged with 45 counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
    Florida: Father Kenneth Hasselbach convicted of possession of child pornography. Hasselbach was previously accused of sexually molesting an altar boy.
    New York: Imam Zulqarnain Abdu-Shahid arrested for smuggling box cutters into a Manhattan jail. Abdu-Shahid has served 14 years in prison for a 1979 murder conviction.

    This Week's Winner –
    Australia: Father Richard Abourjaily has been reassigned from Sydney to Perth after being caught defrauding his congregants by claiming he had prostate cancer and desperately needed money in order to visit the miraculous healing waters of Lourdes, France. Abourjaily was previously dismissed from a seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska for pulling the same scam, but his Australian overseers totally swear he won't do it for a third time in Perth.

    Labels: religion, This Week In Holy Crimes

  • 200. Kim  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    Whowwww, this will be fun. Because:

    If we loose this case at the district court, it will be spun as "See, they cannot even convince a GAY judge, so our case must be VERY STRONG".

    If we win at the district court, it will be spun as: "See, an activist GAY judge!"

    Unfortunately for them, once it goes to the appeals court, they cannot pull the same trick again, because those are all or at least most straight.

    But at the supreme court, this could very well end up in the leading or dissenting opinion…..

    Very interesting, and definitely a wild card that can play out many unpredictable ways……

  • 201. slsmith66  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Has anyone seen if this has been picked up by your local news? So far SF Chronicle seems to be the only one to have outed the Judge. I figured by this morning it would hit the local news here since were only a few hours away from the bay area. I don't know if they consider this a non-issue or a big hot potato!

  • 202. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:53 am

    Not here in NJ….so clearly it's not a national issue.

  • 203. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:26 am

    No, there has been nothing here, where I live, but then we only have one newspaper, but also get the LA Times. I suspect no real "journalistic" paper would cover this kind of news, since it amounts to sensationalism and speculation, since there was no "real proof" cited in the newspaper.

  • 204. george  |  February 8, 2010 at 3:07 am

    The problem is that the Judge showed his bias when he declined to rule in favor of defendants as a matter of law on the rational basis test, as well as his decision to allow tv coverage of the trial. He intended to turn a purely legal matter (the constitutionality of Prop8) into a political one.

    As a matter of public acceptance, the decision would be better received by the public if it were made by someone partial to the other side.

  • 205. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:47 am

    i didn't know that bias meant showing everyone the trial so bloggers, etc couldn't put their own spin on it

    if the thing was broadcast to the whole world, where's the bias there? everyone gets to see what's under the rug without hazel saying it's dust and mr. belvedere saying it's food crumbs.

    he ruled judiciously that broadcasting the trial would be beneficial to the public. the pro-prop8ers made it political.

  • 206. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Actually, Team George, it is the Prop h8ers who have turned this whole thing into a political matter, especially the dihonorable (and dishonored) Andy Re-Pug-NO. The reason this was not summarily decided in favor of the Porp h8 supporters on rational basis test is because there is a proven history of discrimination, up to and including bashing of LGBTQQI's throughout this country. There is also great evidence that those attacks INCREASED in the wake of the passage of Prop h8. Judge Walker is following the law in all respects, which is more than I can say for those who fored Prop h8 on the state of California through various deceptive practices which it turns out may even include tampering with the ballots and the voting machines. Again, you folks really need to do some honest research for a change instead of finding so many illogical, insane, prejudcial, unfounded excuses to whine about smething not going your way just because you perceive yourselves to be in the majority. Before you start spouting that majority line, you would want to take into account the following numbers, all of which are readily available through government and other websites:
    1) Total population
    2) Total number of those who are eligible to vote by virtue of being 18 or older
    3) Total number of registered voters
    4) Total voer turnout.

    Once you look at all those figures, you will see that you have nothing that could even conceivably be called a majority.

  • 207. Kay Moore  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:28 am

    1) 308,646,301 (as of Feb 8 2010)
    2) 230,917,360 eligible (as of 2008)
    3) ~169 million registered voters ( as of 2008 elections)
    4) 61.7% (in 2008 election)

    It is true that those that vote aren't a majority of the population but why is that even remotely relevant? 78 million were not legally permitted to vote. 62 million people chose to let others potentially represent them; 65 million chose to let others represent them in the voting box. Thus, around 127 million people decided that they don't care enough about the laws to personally affect their creation; they have, in other words, chosen to be irrelevant. Of those who are relevant (essentially, those who are willing and able to affect the creation of the laws), a majority agreed with the pro-8 side. They are a majority of those that were both able and willing to make use of their power to create and effect laws, whether directly or through representatives. Yes, they are not a majority of the population but the majority of the population didn't feel like being a part of the democracy so the pro-8 side has the only majority that is relevant. Moreover, they are in possession of the potentially relevant majority as well irregardless of slow movement of opinion. I'm not sure what you could mean by "you have nothing that could even concievably be called a majority."

  • 208. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:37 am

    And dopty-daddy as we saw in the trial the majority of the voters didn't even know what they what voting for….I don't remember the numbers…but there was a lot of lying, cheating, and deception and it was proven in court…right Dopty-daddy?

  • 209. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:58 am


  • 210. Bill  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:09 am

    As usual, george…

    Blah, blah, snore.

  • 211. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:24 am

    RE: George's Comment…

    It is kinda nice to see you so concerned about bias against your case. I like it when I hear you whine about how unfair it is.

    Now normally I would be totally put off by whining as I hear it from GLBT etc, all the time…but coming from you…It is like music to my ears.

    Tell me again about how unfair it is…

    Walker is really biased isn't he….being that he is gay and all.

    Religion really isn't getting a fair shake is it?

    Tell me more George….let me hear you squeal….squeal like a pig George! SooWEE! SooWEE! Here pig pig pig!


  • 212. Sarah Kaiser  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Oh man, I bet feet are being inserted into mouths over the whole 'gays are promiscuous' statements now!

  • 213. Warner  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:41 am

    wait… gays are promiscuous?


    quick, someone grab a saddle, a riding crop, and a crate of cool whip and get over to my house, stat!!!

  • 214. John  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Because of course straight people never do anything like that.

  • 215. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Case in point…..The whipped cream bikini….I don't know about Lesbian's because I'm a Gay man but we don't do that…too many calories….yeah?

  • 216. Sarah  |  February 8, 2010 at 10:50 am

    We do, but we use the skim milk kind 😉 Learned it from the straight people though, I think we just have a sweet tooth.

  • 217. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:00 am

    lol… do I….suger free is good…mmmmmm!!!

  • 218. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Well, that didn't take long:

    nomtweets Got Bias? SF Chronicle Reports Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is Gay

  • 219. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:24 am

    They are such whining cry baby bigots…oh no the judge is Gay…its the Gay Agenda….ahhhh!…….but heaven forbid If we yelled straight bible thumper….on no the judge is a bigot…It's the Holy Agenda……ahhhhh!!!!

    They would say, "you can argue with us, but you cannot argue with God"….bwaaaaa!!!!…please….give me a kit-kat!

  • 220. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:24 am

    It is a good sign! Let them be afraid…it seriously affects their judgement.

  • 221. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:33 am

    "Witness after witness was allowed to testify about their “expert” opinion that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots."

    I don't know….but it seems to me NOM does understand afterall!

  • 222. John  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:36 am

    That was certainly nice of them to summarize our case, wasn't it?

  • 223. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Is this woman for real?

    Maggie G. wrote (on the NOM blog): Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.

    Can't really comment? Really? Hmm. Seems to me that Pugno et al are commenting away over at their sites — and without even permitting rebuttals.

    This woman is delusional.


  • 224. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:44 am

    And the opposite should read:

    "Witness after witness would have been allowed to testify about their "expert" opinion that homosexuals have not been discriminated against. That prop 8 and society has no need to validate their relationships, and that the passage of prop 8 was simply an echo of the word of god and moralistic values that are welcomed on society by gods children…..but they Chickened out"

    hahahaha….it's good right?

  • 225. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I can't help it…it is just tooo rich.

    Tell us NOM…tell us how it is.

    Are the gays prejudiced? Do they not like you flaunting your 'behaviour' in public?

    Are they calling you names? Mocking you?

    I feel your pain…no I do! They are out to get you. Why do they hate you so….after all you are only doing God's work.

    It hurts NOM doesn't it. IT BURNS!!!!!!!

    Tell us NOM, tell the world….tell us how much it hurts…we will listen….and we won't gloat….

    Much. (Snicker!)

  • 226. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Oops, my bad. It wasn't Maggie writing; it was some Howdy-doody look-alike named Brian Brown.


  • 227. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Wait. A Howdy-Doody look-a-like? You mean with the open-car-door ears, the flaming red hair, and the glow-in-the-dark freckles? Oh, heavens! Sounds cute enough to adopt!

  • 228. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Brown is the Executive Director of NOM and may be more obnoxious and more dangerous than Gallagher — if only because he hides his 'foaming at the mouth' better.

  • 229. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:42 am

    They are being held hostage… the US judicial code of conduct.

    But that is ok….I smell the fear! When one feels they have nothing left and they are going to lose they cry foul!


  • 230. Wolfinlv  |  February 8, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Well if the prop 8 side says that they didn't get a fair hearing because of this. We could always claim the same since a heterosexual judge wouldn't be fair either so therefore the only fair judge would either be asexual or bisexual or wait for it . . . . A hermaphroditic bisexual who claims neither male nor female and neither straight nor gay.

  • 231. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 10:54 am


  • 232. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:39 am

    And these are the same people who did not think they had to do their homework and put a real case together because Judge Walker was appointed by Bush! And even now, they aren't doing their homework! This is just Way Too Rich, and Way too Hilarious!

  • 233. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:44 am

    But why would they have to do their homework ,,,Richard W….after all they do have "God" on their side….ah…as if…they are such total baldwins……

  • 234. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Because everyone knows that God helps those who help themselves. In other words, when you do your homework, God increases th rewards thereof. Olsen and boies did their homework. The Prop H8ers did not do theirs.

  • 235. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    So true…and that also was proven in court, on the stand…..bwaaaa!!!!!

  • 236. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:47 am

    to KM/Team George @ #194. It is relevant becuse both of your personae, (both Team Geore and Kay Moore) continue to whine about majority rule being "overthrown" by the checks and balances that were set in place by the founders of this great REPUBLIC over two hundred years ago. And by waiting until the question was asked of Team George, you have just proven that both blog handles belong to the same group of people. You mstcurently be athe central computer forthe "Kay Moore" persona. I guess the Team George central computer is in the shop.

  • 237. Kay Moore  |  February 8, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    George may have said something about it being overthrown by checks and balances but he's not me. Nonetheless, the republic is based on majority rule (albeit not direct democracy) just as all other republics have been. Although if you want to go back to the founding of the great republic, it's notable that the founders never imagined nor did they condone the ability of the judiciary to overrule the legislature; in fact, a principle criticism of the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that it contained a loophole that might allow the judiciary to interfere in the two dominant branches.

  • 238. Stanislas  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Baby, I think you are confused.

    Democracy =/= Republic…

  • 239. Kevin_BGFH  |  February 9, 2010 at 1:37 am

    The Marbury v. Madison ruling was in 1803. Most of the founding fathers were still alive and well and holding office. I'm sure they had plenty of opportunities then and in the intervening 207 years to hold another Constitutional Convention if they didn't accept it.

  • 240. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Well, of course they had opportunity but the people who drew up the Constitution, argued for it, and went through the agonizing process of trying to unite the opinion of 13 independent states on it were well aware of the challenges in repeating their near-miraculous process; furthermore, the prospect of doing so diminished rapidly as each year passed and Madison was not used for any troublesome purpose; the Supreme Court's interference was a thorn in no one's side until Andrew Jackson and he outright ignored the rulings of the Court (related to the constitutionality of Native American removals)… with the Court unable to make him do otherwise. But the Founding Fathers also had the challenge of limited vision: virtually all of the judiciary in their day and any day they could foresee was extremely familiar with the reasoning behind the Constitution, especially Chief Justice Marshall. A situation in which a single sentence in an amendment passed 60 years after Marbury v. Madison could become cited for virtually any purpose, in which a war memorial on public land employing a religious symbol could violate the 1st Amendment, in which "militia" would be interpreted to mean something other than "every person capable of carrying a gun," was inconceivable at the time.

  • 241. Chris  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    This really is a non-issue. Ironically, as much as NOM may scream about bias, at higher levels there will be many religious judges weighing this case. Obviously, religious bias is a major issue being argued here. So unless all religious judges are going to step down and refuse to hear the case, I certainly can't imagine that their bias is any less than a gay judge.

  • 242. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    but apparently not enough of a criticism to undo the three-armed system giving each branch its appropriate "weight" in the process. who says the legislative and executive branches are the dominant ones? maybe the founders recognized that there shouldn't be domination by one branch over the other hence the system….recognized that each branch serves a vital function in the machinery…what is being spun as "interference" by the judiciary is really just them doing their job, interpretting the law and assuring protection for all citizens.

  • 243. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    You're correct, of course, Rightthing. The founders did indeed set up the judiciary to review legislation that might be created by a tyrannical majority. It's discussed in tremendous detail in Federalist Paper #10.

    I am happy to provide a link thereto, just in case people are confused about how a constitutional republic works (not that you are, Rightthing … I think you know what I mean).

    In fact, here's a very good quote from the document:

    Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

    And another one:

    By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

    There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

    There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.


  • 244. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Actually, the Federalists said that the legislative and executive branches would be the dominant ones. They explained that the judicial would be the weak branch, saying that "it has neither the purse nor the sword." The purse refers to the legislature, specifically the right of the House to manage the budget. The sword refers to the executive and its overall role as the executor of the law. The Federalists imagined that a branch that was designed to have no power to enforce its rulings would remain subservient to the branches that did; in this they were incorrect and the Anti-Federalists turned out to be right.

  • 245. David Kimble  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Hey, you all have my permission to ignore the Kay's and the George's here! If we don't respond to their comments, they lose their voice – it's really as simple as that.

  • 246. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    We have a new one David K…on the new courageous thread….and I swear if one kid kills himself/herself because of reading that vile garbage, well I don't know what…..but It will only ad fuel to the fire….right?

  • 247. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Ronnie, that thought did cross my mind.

    You never know when the words you speak, for good or evil, make a difference in someone's day — for good or evil.

    I have never forgotten a particularly low day, in mid-2005. I was being bullied by a boss to whom I had stood up when he mistreated a colleague (I became his new target). He was really going beyond the pale (one of these days I will tell the whole story) and I was close to tears. A vendor called to talk to me, and I answered her questions. She said "Thank you; I always like talking to you. You are so kind, and you are always on top of things." I told her, right then that she had made my day. I said "I won't go into why, but your kindness to me just made an enormous difference in my life."

    That difference was that someone cared enough to say something nice on a day that I was thinking about taking my own life. That job I had at the time was destroying my health, both mentally and physically. I had had all that I could take of the verbal and psychological abuse I endured there daily, but I wasn't in a position to leave at that point. I really believed that the only way I could make the pain stop was to make everything stop — that's how bad it had become.

    One kind person's kind words was what it took to help me take a breath and go on. I shudder to think about the opposite, five years later … but that's how bad it was.


  • 248. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:04 am

    so true fiona64……<3

  • 249. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Hey dopty-daddy and dopty mommy….someone must be really old to have had conversations with people who have been dead for hundreds of years…yeah? or maybe is it "I see Dead people?"….Medium is a very good show!

  • 250. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Well, you know, I think that the really amazing thing is some people's ability to look at what was written a couple of hundred years ago and say "Oh, but what they *really* meant to say was this."

    I don't know about you, but I tend to think that if people meant to say something else, that's what they would have written.


  • 251. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Yeah like if they meant white middle aged heterosexual christian man who owned property including slaves and his wife….then why didn't they write that?……..hahahah


  • 252. fiona64  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:48 am

    In fairness, Ronnie, those were the men who were "created equal" at the time of the Constitution. However, that does not change the fact that the Federalist system of tri-partite government with checks and balances is indeed the law of the land.


  • 253. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:55 am

    So true….but it shows how smart they really were…I mean maybe they didn't know definition of loopholes or the metaphor or more whole then swiss cheese club sandwich…dang it…now I'm hungry……lol

  • 254. Felyx  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Certain documents in question mentioned marriage as a civil right and that all MEN are created equal. It never said anything about gays getting married or that women and ni99ers were in any way equal.

  • 255. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:35 am

    That is indeed an amazing ability. Sadly, it's not an ability I've been blessed with so I'm forced to rely on what is actually written.

  • 256. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:39 am

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!….that's it just bwaa!

  • 257. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Yeah. Unfortunately, the Federalist system of bi-partite government with a secondary branch of significantly less power has been corrupted to give more power to the weakest branch than the two strongest branches. Even more unfortunately, the splitting of power between the representatives of the population and the representatives of the state governments was undone under the banner of "progress."

  • 258. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:45 am


  • 259. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:50 am

    A bi-sexual what……moegoe……. Nobody was talking to it don't be a hypocrite and entering my conversation….isn't that what it said…..its my precious….my precious….Don't worry hobbits I will show you the way…..bwaaaaaa…moegoe…eina!

  • 260. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:52 am

    dumb dumb dumbe…dumbdee de doobie dumb….wa wa wa wa waaaaaaa!!!!!!!…moegoe eina!…hahahaha

  • 261. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Oh no, Ronnie… I'm like the Ghost Whisperer but better: I can READ dead people's words on paper. It's almost as if they wrote their beliefs down and such things were preserved and published for public availability.

  • 262. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Hey dopty-daddy and dopty-mommy……. I now think that Harry Potter is a religion and Edgar Allen Poe's stories are a manual to complete the perfect murder because I can read people's words on paper. It's almost as if these stories were written down and such things were and are being preserved and published for public availability…. so I am going to purchase a flying broom and a pendulum to worship at the alter of Poe and Potter….because I believe everything I read as true….that's it …now my official religion is Poetterism and I am a Poetter……..BWAAAAAAAA!!!!

  • 263. Kay Moore  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:43 am

    With the minor difference that what the dead people who created the Constitution wrote tells the literate reader how the government was meant to function.

  • 264. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:46 am

    says the illiterate that believes everything it reads as true…do do do do do do do do do…..You have entered the Homo zone…….BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

  • 265. Kathlene  |  February 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Prop 3 created three distinct classes of people: straight people who can get married and divorced, gay people who got married before prop 8 if divorced cannot remarry, and gay people who can't get married after prop 8.

  • 266. Prop 8 Trial Judge "&hellip  |  February 9, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    […] rather, it was assigned to him at random. Over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Brian Leubitz raises an issue that explains just how absurd it would be to accuse Judge Walker of being biased on account of who […]

  • 267. Ross  |  February 10, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Based on the illogic of the argument that the plaintiffs are predisposed to a victory, are being advantaged, or that the decision is unduly influenced by the alleged fact that the judge is gay, we can reach the following illogical conclusions:
    1. All cases of sexual harassment should be heard by male judges because female judges give an advantage.
    2. All cases of rape should be heard by men.
    3. All cases involving black people should be heard by white, asian or latino judges to avoid unfair advantage to the black plaintiff.
    4. Cases of age discrimination should be heard by young judges so the old one doesnt give the plaintiff an advantage.

    We need to protect common sense, sanity, and rationality, not marriage.

  • 268. Drasties - Dutch on the W&hellip  |  February 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    […] rather, it was assigned to him at random. Over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Brian Leubitz raises an issue that explains just how absurd it would be to accuse Judge Walker of being biased on account of who […]

  • 269. Link(s): Mon, Jan 25th, 1&hellip  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    […] Did They Know Jus­tice Alito Is Male? « Prop 8 Trial Tracker […]

  • 270. Impeach Judge Walker? &la&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    […] those pleasant closeted gays of generations past). I’ll point them to my earlier post, “Did They Know Justice Alito is Male?” Back then, I pointed out the irony that nobody was complaining when Justice Alito was […]

  • 271. Alteril Review&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Steve’s Sleep Treatment Site…

    […]although the web pages we link to underneath are entirely not related to ours, we think that they are really worth a read, so have a look[…]…

  • 272. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

  • 273. free stuff&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Catch it…

    […]Cool website[…]…

  • 274. Basic SEO Staff&hellip  |  November 28, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Basic SEO Staff…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  • 275. wunder  |  July 22, 2013 at 3:23 am

    of course such as your web-site but you want to implement some of the punctuational upon a good number of of one’s articles. Some are usually rife together with punctuational difficulties and I to discover the idea really annoying to tell reality however , I’ll certainly revisit yet again.

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