Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Assuming Bias: Judge Walker’s sexuality

Press Right-wing

By Julia Rosen

It was just a matter of time before the right-wing fired up the Wurlitzer and attempted to undermine Judge Walker’s standing as an independent minded, fair jurist because he happens to be gay. Their argument is predictable, that Judge Walker should recuse himself because it is impossible for him to be unbiased. Pardon the French, but what a load of crap.

The SF Chronicle has done an excellent job pushing back on this meme from the religious right. From an editorial:

Vaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Which makes it all the more ironic to read this from Matt Barber from the Liberty Counsel, posted at

Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker’s personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.

To which the Chron says:

Those who understood the distinct roles of lawyer-advocate and judge recognized that a person of ethics and fidelity to the law could separate his or her personal views and experiences from professional duty. [SNIP]

A judge’s sexual orientation does not inherently shade his ability to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution with clear-eyed wisdom. Assuming this case advances on appeal, no matter how Walker rules, there almost certainly will be jurists who will need to set aside their religion’s teachings – and, quite likely, the impact of their ruling on close friends or even a family member – as they do their utmost to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, Ruth Marcos over at the WaPo is still “squirming” over this.

You’re seeing a lot of question marks so far because this one is more difficult than it first appears. My instant reaction was that Walker ought to be free to hear the case. That remains my bottom line, but not without some squirming. No one would question an African-American judge’s capacity to preside over a race discrimination lawsuit or a female jurist’s handling of a sexual harassment case. In the Proposition 8 matter, a straight judge would bring his own preconceptions to the courtroom, and no one would challenge his impartiality.

Why is this more difficult than a question of race, religion or gender? The only answer is that somehow Marcos thinks that being gay is different than being something just as immutable, like being African-American or a woman. It isn’t.

But yet, here we are with people wrestling with this question, instead of automatically assuming that Judge Walker is going to do just as good a job calling balls and strikes here, as he did representing his clients to stop a gay athletic competition from using the word Olympics. It smacks of the uncomfortableness that a lot of the American public has with LGBTs. We make them “squirm”, rather than assume we act like other more understood groups. It is an unfortunate example of just how much further our society has to go towards complete understanding, acceptance and support of LGBTs.

Tags: ,


  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:42 am

    They just keep trying to figure us out…we're not rubiks cubes…we have faces and names, and are just like everyone else.

  • 2. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:48 am

    It's ridiculous, of course. We all know that. This is what we call grasping at straws. It's pure desperation on the part of the anti-equality types.


  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Since we know religion is a choice, all religious judges from hereon further should be recused of this case.

  • 4. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:48 am

    I absolutely 100% agree without a doubt in my mind…<3…Ronnie

  • 5. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Second that one here. This is about little more than political shenanigans.

  • 6. Misken  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Nice. I totally agree

  • 7. Chris  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    Since a gay judge must be inherently biased against Prop 8's case, mustn't a straight judge be biased for it? Therefore, I submit, any jurist with a sexual orientation must recuse him- or herself from the case. After this round is decided in our favor, of course.

  • 8. Kim  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:51 am

    And yet, the right wing nuts claim we are not a suppressed minority.

  • 9. Kim  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:52 am

    And it really doesn't matter as the 9th circuit will redo the case anyway.

  • 10. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:52 am

    "He is just 'sposed to call 'balls and strikes'!"

    The H8ers cried 'Foul'!!!

  • 11. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Better still….


    Judge Calls Balls and Strikes Defendents Cry Foul!

  • 12. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Julia, once again, you have done a great job of presenting the facts. IMHO, the only ones who are "squirming" over Judge Walker's alleged sexual orientation are people who don't know any LGBTQQI people on a personal basis. Thes people are always going to judge us based upon the stereotypes presented in movies, whether those movies are silver screen or TV. They will always fail to realize that we are everyday people, trying to live our everyday lives with the same rights and protections that they take for granted. It is truly up to us to continue to have marches everywhere in this country to let them all see us in our everyday clothing and show them that we are not the stereotypes. This is what it will take before many of them will see tha we are just everyday average Americans who want to live our lives in peace and harmony, but who are unable to do so until we get he government out of our bedrooms, our homes, and our personal lives. They have not yet realized that so long as th government is in OUR bedrooms, OUR homes, and OUR lives, the government is also in theirs. This is what we need to tell them.

  • 13. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:51 am

    You're right Richard W…….if I wanted to be on a reality show….I would apply for one…..btw…..I sooooo want to be the first Gay Bachelor…

  • 14. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:41 am

    I want to be the first gay Bridezilla! I can't be the first gay to call on Cheaters. I saw that episode about three and a half years ago.

  • 15. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:48 am


  • 16. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:17 am

    You know, we need to dig the dirt up on Andy, Maggie, Rick, et al. and create an expose.

    Imagine reading:

    NOM's leader, Maggie Gallegher, who had an abortion at 16 had teamed up with known womanizers Pugno and Santorum of Family Rights. McCain, whose gay daughter won't speak with him, believe it is the right thing to do.

    Obviously not entirely true, as it is an example. A well written Op-Ed that just kept pointing these things out would be awesome!

  • 17. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Maggie has a bastard(excuse my French) child…that should be good enough….but nooooooo!!!!


  • 18. Happy  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Yeah. Judge Walker being gay sheds a new light on everything – in the minds of the opposition. It never fails to amaze me that so many people can only see a thing from one side, never considering that there could be possible anti-gay bias from a straight judge. We're willing to take our chances… why aren't they?

    Also, seeing that Walker has taken a traditionally hard line AGAINST LGBT issues, it would seem that in the past he might've been judging in an unfairly biased way against us/"his own" in order to establish that his sexuality would NOT be a factor in his decisions…

    But, if doing so for that reason, it was still a factor (albeit one NOT in our favor rather than the opposite).

    Thoughts to ponder…

  • 19. Bill  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:30 am

    They were kinda COUNTING ON anti-gay bias from a straight judge.

    How else would we find ourself without SO MANY of our civil rights in the year 2010?

    Biased judges and lawmakers have kept us in this position for decades.

  • 20. Linda  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:27 am

    The facts of the case need to be broadcast. It seems that the H8ers have cart blanche in the media, while we have no voice at all.

    I look forward to the time when our attorneys will be free to speak about the case. I'm sure they will have a lot to say!

  • 21. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Well, not actually no voice. I write from time for a website called – just today, I wrote and submitted an opinion piece about the outing of Judge Walker. It is not up yet, but I will let everyone here know, when it has been posted with a link to the article.

  • 22. Bill  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I live in California. This never makes the news. Never. Not even a peep. They mentioned the trial the day it ended, but it doesn't make TV news at all.

    I think it is only important to us and to bigots, um, I mean 'traditional-marriage enthusiasts.'

    The others could really care less. Because they understand that it is none of their freakin' business.

  • 23. Dave T  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    I also live in California & I have to give credit to my local NPR station (KCLU in Thousand Oaks). In addition to having pretty much the only local news in SoCal, they have been mentioning the Prop8 trial from time to time – I heard a report on the filing of amicus briefs not too long ago. And, I should mention, it's their local staff (not NPR) who are doing the reporting, even though the trial is taking place in San Francisco.

  • 24. Lori  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:30 am

    This annoys me so much. Does this mean anyone with a sexual orientation is therefore "biased" and not able to hear the case?

    And Richard, good point. I wonder if maybe the reason some of those people don't know any LGBTQQI people is because their homophobia keeps their friends in the closet. That was sure the case for me when I was questioning.

  • 25. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:55 am

    It means that if you are NOT biased due to SO then you MUST NOT see the case.

    Religious proH8ers are forbidden to eat of the tree of Knowlegdge of Good and Dumbassery.

  • 26. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:10 am

    "Religious proH8ers are forbidden to eat of the tree of Knowlegdge of Good and Dumbassery."
    Thanx, Felyx, it was a good thing I wasn't eating or drinking anything, when I read that, since it may have made a mess on my puter.

  • 27. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Hehehehe! 12 years of Catholic School….gotta love it.

    I actually memorized just about the entire Bible at one point. It is too bad I did not have the skills to understand and appropriately explain it or there would have been no way to ever win an argument with me!

  • 28. Bill  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:33 am

    genitalectomy will be required for all justice positions in the future.

  • 29. Bill  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:34 am

    i think i meant 'judicial positions…'

  • 30. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:39 am

    What if there is a genital mutilation case? Could get messy!!!

  • 31. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:44 am

    OUCH!!!! That would hurt in too many ways, none of them nice!

  • 32. erasure25  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:32 am

    As has been mentioned above, the same argument could be made that being straight would cloud one's judgment to rule in favor of the defense… or that being human clouds one's judgment in cases involving animal rights.

    It's a straw man argument.

  • 33. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:39 am

    I've said before, when one hasn't anything real to show then they start with the lies and namecalling.

    I take this as a good sign really!

    The arguments are not winning, the opposition feels it is losing ground rapidly….let them grasp at straws! I like to see it! The rest of us need to stand firm on solid ground and speak the truth to more people. We need to remain in a position of strength and let them hang themselves!

  • 34. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:42 am

    "When the law supports your case, argue the law. When the facts support your case, argue the facts. When neither supports your case, bang on the table." — Oliver Wendell Holmes

  • 35. Bolt  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Well said!

  • 36. Buddha Buck  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:35 am

    In Livejournal I've run across a gentleman who insists Judge Walker should have recused himself because:

    1. His being gay gives him a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the case that inevitably biases him for the plaintiffs and against the D-I.

    He distinguishes PvS from Loving v Virginia with a hypothetical black judge in that not all blacks at the time supported miscegenation, but 100% of all gays support same-sex marriage.

    and 2. His breaking of the court rules to ram through video broadcast of the trial was done with the deliberate intent to sway public opinion to the plaintiff's side and put the D-I at a disadvantage, esp. since the D-I's witnesses would be subject to harrassment, etc.

    I'm not the only person who has given up trying to talk to him on the issue.

  • 37. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:51 am


    The more they whine the better I feel!

    They think they are losing and so they are crying foul!!!

    We need to stay strong!!

  • 38. Todd  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:05 am

    I happen to know that some LGBT people are against same sex marriage, so it isn't quite 100%. I know at least one, and the old Prop 22 website had a blurb on the fact that they had gay supporters.

    So there is no confusion though, I am straight and support same sex marriage.


  • 39. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Not completely unusual there are people of color who are against interracial marriage and there are women who are against women's rights even in todays age…. One town over from me there is a Black only grade school….represents a very minor percentage, almost completely off the radar…but it doesn't mean that everybody should be discriminated against because of a select few.

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

    Send him to me, Budda Buck. My husband and I share our house with his adopted by heart not by law son and the son's partner, and I have had to ignore the son's partner ever since this trial started because he thinks the Prop h8 supporters are right and that the plaintiffs were wrong to file suit. So no, not all LGBTQQI's support same-sex marriage. Some are still childish enough to think it is not worth the effort. So we even have detractors in our own house, so to speak. Or in my case, literally.

  • 41. Dave T  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    "100% of all gays support same-sex marriage" – didn't the prop 8 folks argue that this is NOT the case?

  • 42. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Shorter Matt Barber: He's GAY GAY GAY GAY GAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

    [youtube =]

  • 43. K  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Even if the judge weren't gay, they'd be accusing him of bias. That he happens to be gay is just convenient for them.

    The timing is interesting. It's like the Prop 8 folks have set the judge up by creating this. See how smart lawyers are at strategy and tactics?

    QUESTION: If this wasn't secret info before the trial (and you can be assured that they found out all they could about the judge before the trial started), and if they thought the gay judge migt not be impartial, couldn't they have asked the judge to recuse himself BEFORE the trial started, on that basis?

    Sure would appreciate an answer from someone with legal education.


  • 44. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:20 am

    They were implying the possibility of bias at the very beginning of the trial. The PM/NOM blog posts started with the possibility of losing due to the inappropriate actions of the judge (cameras, other motions dismissed, etc). In the first PM post, an implication was made that the only way he (the judge) could rule against prop 8 was if the judge were biased.

    The fact that he's gay just adds to, and supports that fallback messaging. They *will never* post on those sites (PM/NOM – assuming they lose this round) stating that their case didn't hold up because their 'facts' were bogus, and their support of prop8 was based on animus, and the trial clearly demonstrated that. That will just never happen, and getting upset at that is just… pointless.

    When they lose, it will *always* be because of 'bias' and 'judicial activism'. I am not sure why some of you seem surprised by this tactic. It's total BS of course, but it plays well to their audience – they have to keep the funds, the fear and the anger rolling in.

    But as Fiona, David, Ronnie, Dieter, and so many others have said, be strong, be vocal, and oppose every lie with the truth πŸ™‚

    Oh, and be happy! πŸ™‚

  • 45. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:25 am

    LOL….I only speak the truth….I only speak the TRUTH!!!!…..Viva La Revolution….La Vie Boheme!!!…<3…Ronnie

  • 46. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Ronnie, did you mean La Vie Boheme, or La Vida Boheme? Now, that is one lady who really packs a wallop. The only way I want to see her mad is if she is on MY side in the fight!

  • 47. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    "I think that's Healthy"…….hehehe…..<3…Ronnie

  • 48. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Healthier than the side of the fight Sgt. Dullard (Dollard, it's a misprint) was on, right, Ronnie?

  • 49. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm


  • 50. dieter  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Breaking News from ABC7 Eyewitness News

    Thursday, February 11, 2010
    ABC News reports former President Bill Clinton has been hospitalized at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan, possibly related to his heart condition.

  • 51. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Oh, dear. My thoughts are with former Pres. Clinton and his family.


  • 52. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:04 am

    yeah I just heard…it is hard to show compassion because of DADT but from someone who almost had a heart attack at 20yo, I wish him the best


  • 53. Matt  |  February 11, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    DADT is a vile, unAmerican, and unconstitutional policy that needs to be repealed NOW!, but I don't think that Bill deserves to be held personally responsible for it. As I remember, he originally advocated for allowing gays to serve openly (a repeal of the previous policy with expressly forbid gays to serve at all), but he ran into so much public outcry against that position, as well as so much resistance in congress that he realized it would be impossible to implement. He only compromised with DADT, because he felt it was better than nothing.

    While on the subject, I also think he doesn't deserve as much blame as he gets for DOMA. I think a veto would have been a nice moral victory for our side, but it would have only been symbolic, since DOMA actually passed with enough votes in congress to override such a veto anyways.

    Don't get me wrong, the man certainly had no shortage of faults, but if anyone deserves the blame for LGBT setbacks during his administration, it's the republicans who came into power in congress shortly after he did, and did everything in their power to shut down his agenda.

  • 54. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Fiona, he didn't apologize to me either, and several times he directly insulted me. Calling me a whiner was the least of what he said. But oh, well. Anyway we can get Mr. HCI restored so that he can resume posting? Or have they already fixed that?

  • 55. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Hey, everybody. President Clinton is okay. It was just an angioplasty with two stents and he is expected to be released tomorrow. The doctors said that the procedure is common somewhere between 5 and 10 years after a bypass, and that President Clinton is recovering nicely. This procedure is so common, and so relatively easy on the body that they only sedate you, and you remain awake throughout. Thought you might like to know that our prayers have been answered and that he will be okay.

  • 56. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Thank you for the update, Richard. Pres. Clinton is a good (not perfect, but good) man who works hard on humanitarian projects. I agree that the blame for DADT does not lie nearly as much with him as some people like to make it appear.


  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    No I agree…Clinton doesn't deserve all the blame…I guess what I was trying to point out is how easy it is for one person to hold all the blame….and secondly the ha8ters applaud him because of DADT and DOMA like he is on their side….another point that shows that its ok that a man cheats on his wife as long as he does anything that may oppress LGBT Americans… you see what I'm getting at?

    It is clear that Clinton has serious regrets about allowing those things to happen…but coulda, woulda, shoulda…right?……..<3…Ronnie

  • 58. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:56 am

    You're welcome. I do what I can to not only be informed myself, but to also pass the information along. And on a slightly different topic, do you think that was really Team George that said farewell the other day? The tone of the farewell was almost too nice for me to believe it was really him. Or maybe he is beginning to see the light? I have heard that the only time it is too late for someone to change his or her mind when presented with new information is when he or she is in the grave, so could it be possible? I'm not saying that it actually happened, but could it be possible, even if it does seem very far-fetched?

  • 59. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Richard, I tend to think it really was George T. who signed off. I know for a fact that he was blocked at the IP level yesterday.

    (I also noticed that he apologized to all of the people he *directly* insulted except me, LOL. Just goes to prove Felyx's theory was right; he wants my attention.)

    I hope that he takes Alan E's challenge and tells his gay friends that he doesn't believe that they deserve equal rights …


  • 60. Andrew  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:43 am

    All this reaction about Judge Walker's outing is ridiculous. When the media still thought he was straight, did any pro-marriage supporters start going on and on about a heterosexual judge possibly being biased? I don't think I ever saw a hint of that in any reports I'd seen about the trial.

    The basic question is why does it matter? And the answer really is that it doesn't. And it shouldn't matter to anyone else, either. This is just another excuse to complain and whine by the pro-8 side.

    Although, I do have to say, the article in the WaPo isn't really saying Walker should step down or his sexuality is an issue. At most, it remarks on politics changing through the years. She even says at the end that she hopes the plaintiffs win; it's just a reality that a human judge is a human, not, as she put it, a" well-programmed computer." I don't think her article was quite fairly shared here. Just my 2 cents, though.

  • 61. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:02 am

    That was Kay's point, if he was a well-programmed computer then we could all just rest easier knowing that NOBODY WOULD BE HAPPY TAKING ORDERS FROM A COMPUTER!

  • 62. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:08 am

    or a Robot………DANGER…..DANGER…..You Homosexual!!!……..hehehe….lol…<3…Ronnie

  • 63. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Bender from Futurama said it best, "Kill all humans and there will be no more human problems!"

  • 64. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:50 am

    The Prop 8 supporters may still be winning in the court of public opinion, but they have lost in the legal arena, regardless of who might have been appointed judge for this case.

  • 65. Bolt  |  February 11, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Why does anyone expect society to come to terms with their homophobia? Let them have it, and let them hate, but the LGBT group deserves the full protection of the law from societies reckless ignorance. That is fair!

    Conversely, the bible thumping bigots can cry all they want, but they can't get the judge to resign from this case. They're going to lose because they can't produce any evidence for their disgusting claims. I hate them for their blind ignorance, and look forward to the day when we rub their noses in their great big pile of shit that they've created!

  • 66. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:04 am

    And for the record….they can't introduce anymore shit if this goes to 9th. So if they lose once the odds are they will lose again.


  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Exactly all we are asking for is tolerance and Equality….their "approval is not needed"….."Approval neither desired nor required"- "Tu Wong Foo"

    Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion protects them but as tax paying Americans it protects us as well….well mostly( but that will all be changed with Equality)

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

    I don't hate them, Bolt. I pity them. And won't they be in for a big surprise when they get to Heaven and see a rainbow flag over each of the pearly gates!

  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Granted dopty-daddy…..everything in heaven is white party so it will probably pastel colored rainbow flags…………<3…Ronnie

  • 70. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Well, I for one will be bringing my bold, bright not at all pastel, cannot mistake the colors for anything else but the rainbow flag with me as I march through the gate to join my family, including my uncle on my mother's side. His middle name and mine are the same, as he was one of the two uncles I was named for when I was born. And he was gay also. Guess that shoots their argument about no genetic proof, doesn't it. No, I will not give his first name, mainly because we had a troll on here who stole that name and used it fo nefarious purposes–namely LGBTQQI bashing. So let's just call him my uncle Allen.

  • 71. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    LOL..Oh I 100% believe that it is genetic…I don't know if you remember but I have posted that my fam. on my mothers side has been here for 7 gen. right after the D.O.I was signed..anywho 4 of those gens have openly gay family members including me. My great uncle(RIP), my uncle(RIP), my aunt, my sister is Bi(prefers men), one male cousin is gay, another is BI(son of lesbian aunt), female cousin is Bi(prefers men) and a second cousin male is Bi(but I think he's a raging flame, very interested in boys)…my family should be studied….lol

  • 72. Sheryl  |  February 11, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    I definitely believe in the genetic link. My son is gay, my niece son is gay, I have lesbian 2nd cousin on my dad's side and my dad had a couple of unmarried uncles think there was probably a good reason they weren't married. And, who knows how many closet homosexuals there are or were in the family.

  • 73. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:01 am

    A request for one of the lawyers posting here..

    Would someone do a post on the topic of the discovery battle playing out in the case right now? I see that an order signed by Spero has just been filed; I'm assuming it's an order re: discovery.

    I'd like to know the background, e.g., Are all questions of discovery being decided by Spero? If so, why? What is the ruling on the subject by the 9th Circuit that keeps being alluded to by the D-Is? Can we get a chronology of the arguments and counter-arguments being presented by both sides wrt discovery?

    Maybe this isn't anything that would interest most of the posters here, in which case I defer to the majority interest.

  • 74. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:05 am

    No, I agree. The better equipped we are to understand the legal mechanisms and ramifications of this case, the more highly enabled we become to argue intelligently about future cases. It may be tedious for some, but I fell safe to say that there are others of us interesting in throwing as much light as possible on the subject.

  • 75. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Actually I would be interested in a more detailed rundown on the specifics of this case and a clearer understanding on how this will get to the 9th and how they will proceed with it.

    What explicitly is Walker deciding on?
    How can the legal status of the existing marriages play out? (What about ex post facto and how does that influence the case?)
    How will the decision by Walker affect the four classes of unions?
    What circumstances would lead to immediate legal enforcement and what would be pending until the 9th?

    How does this get to 9th if we win / if we lose?
    What will 9th procedure be? (No new evidence for one.)
    How many judges are involved?
    What explicitly will they be deciding?
    How will their ruling immediately affect legal standing of current marriages and the right to marry?

    Things like this. Would just love to know more details period.

    Thank you in advance,

  • 76. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Oh, and if 9th rules for the plaintiffs how does this affect other states. Are their DOMA's immediately overturned or do they have to be challenged.

    If there is any more room in the article….it would be nice to hear a well thought out explication of PvS if/when it goes to SCOTUS.


  • 77. Buddha Buck  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:30 am

    I am not a lawyer, so take my answers with a grain of salt. Besides, it's often been said that the best way to get information on the Internet is to post incorrect information which will cause people to jump on it with corrections.

    What explicity is Walker deciding on?

    The Plaintiffs, in their complaint, have asked for a judgement by the Court stating that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment (and 42 USC 1983, a Federal code allowing citizens to sue for their consitutional rights and privileges), and a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of Prop 8.

    Judge Walker's job is to decide whether or not Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment.

    How can the legal status of the existing marriages play out?

    The status of existing marriages is unaffected. Marriage has traditionally been regulated by the States, which is why up until now the court battles have all been state-by-state. The California Courts decided (pre-Prop 8) that the California Constitution required the State to permit same-sex marriages, and decided (post-Prop 8) that the revised California Constitution required the State to recognize existing legal same-sex marriages. Nothing which happens at the Federal level can change how the California Courts interpret the California Constitution.

    How will the decision by Walker affect the four classes of unions?

    If he grants the Plaintiff's pleas, then at the very least (once it is upheld and/or all stays expire) currently unmarried same-sex couples will be able to marry. I suspect it would require an act of the California Legislature or Courts to automatically convert existing DPs into marriages.

    If he denies the plaintiff's pleas, then there would be no change from the current situation.

    What circumstances would lead to immediate legal enforcement and what would be pending until the 9th?

    If Judge Walker grants the pleas, then the injunction would go into effect immediately, unless he, or the 9th, stays the injunction until some event. It would be reasonable to assume that in this case Judge Walker would stay the injunction until the deadline for filing an appeal. It would also be reasonable to assume that, if appealed, the 9th would stay the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal.

    How does this get to 9th if we win / if we lose?

    After the Judge makes his ruling, either party who feels that an error exists in the judgement that hurts their position may file an appeal of the judgement to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (9CCA). In their appeal, they must state what they believe the error was, why it was in error, and appeal for it to be corrected.

    What will 9th procedure be?

    In an appeal, the terminology changes. Instead of plaintiff and defendant-intervenors, the parties becomes petitioners and respondents. The party that asked for the appeal is the petitioner, and the party that is arguing that the original decision was correct are the respondents. Since sometimes both sides appeal on different issues, you can have petitioner-counterrespondents and vice-versa.

    At this level, the 9CCA is required to listen to any appeal, and the appeal will likely be handed over to a panel of 3 Judges to evaluate. The parties will file merit-briefs explaining why they are correct, and the appellate judges will review the briefs, the record from below (the district court's trial transcripts, findings of facts, and findings of law, etc), and the oral arguments of the parties, and then decides if the appeal is valid.

    The parties submitting briefs are not allowed to introduce evidence in the briefs, just legal arguments. The Judges usually defer to the lower courts findings of fact, but are allowed to examine the introduced evidence de novo ("as new"). They will most likely examine the law de novo, although that doesn't mean they don't read the judges findings of law.

    How many judges are involved?

    3 at first, although if a party doesn't like the ruling of the panel, they can further appeal to the 9CCA en banc, or as a whole. The 9CCA doesn't have to accept this appeal, but if they do, then all the judges in the 9CCA, less the three in the original panel, consider the en banc appeal, following a similar procedure as the panel appeal. That would be 44 judges.

    What explicitly will they be deciding?

    Whether or not Judge Walker made any of the specific errors the appeal claims — and whether those errors, if any, would, or could, change the outcome of the case. Depending on their answers, they could affirm the decision, reverse the decision, or reverse-and-remand the decision. The last means that the decision is returned to the lower court basically asking the court to reconsider in light of the opinion of the higher court. It usually happens when the lower court says "The pleas are valid if either A or B. A is easier to decide, and is true, so the pleas are valid and we don't have to look at B", and the appellate court says "No, A is false, try again".

    Without knowing the explicit objections the petitioners have, there is no way of saying what, explicitly, the appelate courts will be deciding.

    How will their ruling immediately affect legal standing of current marriages and the right to marry?

    No immediate effect, since if they decide in support of gay marriage they are likely to immediately stay the ruling until all appeal deadlines have passed. However, assuming that they do decide in support of gay marriage, and all stays expire, then same-sex couples will be allowed to marry — in California, if not in all of the 9th Circuit (AK, WA, OR, CA, ID, MT, NV, AZ, HI).

    If they decide against gay marriage, then any existing stay would immediately expire, and we're back to where we are now.

    Assuming that the plaintiffs win at the appellate level (and it doesn't go to the SCOTUS), then it's likely that the States would choose to not enforce their DOMAs rather than have it go to court, as they would lose quickly.

  • 78. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Thank you Buddha Buck! I have been enlightened. That was very very helpful.

    Regarding the existing marriages, if they could not be voided, could CA be sued due to unfair treatment under the law? I am guessing that even if I did not state it correctly there would still be cause. Just curious.

    Very clarifying. Again, thank-you.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Okay, as Buddha Buck suggested, a posting encourages people to jump in with corrections.

    And I should preface that (in case you didn't catch my post in the previous thread) I'm also not an attorney.

    There are a few additions/corrections to Buddha Buck's post:
    "What explicity is Walker deciding on?" There are several intervening questions that Walker will likely rule on before ultimately addressing the question of Prop 8's consitutionality. Among these are whether glbt people are members of "suspect class" – thus determining the level of scrutiny that must be applied in the analysis. This determination is the result of addressing each prong in the analysis of establishing a suspect class. In general, looking to the complaint filed by plaintiffs will best answer the question of what is he deciding. I'll look at the complaint and see if I can better answer this question. (unless someone else comes in here and can give a more authoritative response)

    "Nothing which happens at the Federal level can change how the California Courts interpret the California Constitution" This statement could be misleading. When a portion of a state constitution is held to be in violation of the US Constitution, then the offending section must be removed/revised to conform to constitutional principles. In this case, if Prop 8 is held unconstitutional, the amendment to the California Constitution effected by its passage will be invalidated.

    How many judges are involved? Most of buddha buck's answer is correct, but the statement "The 9CCA doesn’t have to accept this appeal, but if they do, then all the judges in the 9CCA, less the three in the original panel, consider the en banc appeal, following a similar procedure as the panel appeal" isn't exactly correct. The 9th Circuit has a set of unique rules because of its large size (29 or so judges in all?) As a consequence, it's rare for an en banc review to include *all* of the judges. I think the rules are that a randomly selected panel of 11 judges oversee an en banc review (not sure of the exact number).

    A note on this statement: "I suspect it would require an act of the California Legislature or Courts to automatically convert existing DPs into marriages." I can't imagine either the legislature or the courts doing that. As has been pointed out, DPs and Marriage are not interchangeable and just because someone registered as DPs doesn't mean they necessarily *want* marriage.

    I have some questions for the attorney's regarding admission of new evidence. Is it not a holding of law, rather than a finding of fact, whether certain evidence is relevant and therefore should be admitted? If so, does that mean that Walker's refusal to admit certain evidence could be grounds for appeal? And then do appellate courts review the decision while considering this "new" evidence?

  • 80. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Count me in as being interested too.

  • 81. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Kathleen, thank you for this request. I for one am seeking out all the information I can find, and rying to get all the details I can so that I can better figure out with my own personal style how to present a nutsheel version of what is going on and what is on the discussion table here. What you have done is open up yet another resource for all of us. Kudos, young lady.

  • 82. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Felyx, did you see this post?
    "A Little Bit of Appellate Primer"

    Some of your questions were answered in that post by Brian Leubitz.

  • 83. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Yes I did, but I still would like a better understanding of the whole process and many specific aspects as well.

    Thank you though.

  • 84. Linda  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Here's a headline from the AP–
    "Huge rally and protests mark Iran revolution–Hundreds of thousands of Iranians massed Thursday in central Tehran to mark the anniversary of the revolution that created the country's Islamic republic, while a heavy security force fanned out across the city and moved quickly to snuff out opposition counterprotests."

    Just change a few words, and we have–"Hundreds of thousands of Americans massed Thursday in Washington DC to mark the anniversary of the formation of the Christian Coalition that created the country's Christian republic, while a heavy security force fanned out across the city and moved quickly to snuff out opposition counterprotests."

  • 85. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Not as farfetched as one might think. I am 100 percent convinced that there is a loud and vocal minority that wants to turn the US into the Republic of Gilead.


  • 86. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:52 am

    And in Robert Heinlein's If This Goes On—, Nehemiah Scudder was elected in 2012. *shudder*

  • 87. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Ha! What a great book. And yes, I am sure there are those that drool at establishing something like Gilead.

  • 88. K  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:38 am

    KQED has some docs posted on their Prop8 blog:

    Docs are available from the court's website for a fee:

    "The public also has access to the system, but interested parties must register with PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to obtain a PACER login and password for the CM/ECF system. To register, visit the PACER Service Center. This is the federal judiciary's centralized registration, billing, and technical support center for electronic access to U.S. district, bankruptcy, and appellate court records. Registering with PACER is free, and all documents filed by the court in accordance with the E-Government Act are also free, but there are charges for other court documents and all documents filed by attorneys."


  • 89. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Pacer you have to have an account and .08¢ per page…although I am thinking it might be nice just to see what's in there.

    Lot's of documents can be found here:

    Some dockets and filings for Prop 8 can be found here:

    not sure who's looking for what though.

  • 90. rpx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:32 am

    LLB, thanks for the link, I am the kind of person who is going to go look around there and see if I find anything interesting. I do ahve a PACER account but why pay if I don't have to.

  • 91. K  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:41 am

    SUGGESTION: Wouldn't it be great to have a Q&A string with a lawyer explaining things and answering our questions?

  • 92. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Yes, it would!

  • 93. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Actually, yes it would be great. Daily I have questions and many times I don't ask them…they may be too silly.

    Great idea.

  • 94. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Here's another website with even more documents available. I'm not sure why it hasn't been updated since Feb 5.

  • 95. Clem Brulee  |  February 11, 2010 at 7:56 am

    A judge is supposed to recuse himself for even "the appearance of impropriety". This is a very broad rule. Yet, nobody on the pro-prop8 side has put forth any evidence of this. No evidence has come up that suggests the judge stands to personally gain from any particular ruling. I see no indication he plans to marry somebody of his own sex, or sell wedding favors to same-sex couples.

    If they disagree with the judge's decisions (in calling him "unfair"), their counsel should simply lodge an appropriate objection for appeal. Judicial error is handled by the appeals process, something they plan on using already.

    All this fuss about recusal seems like trying to get a mistrial… in effect, trying to sink the boat mid-ocean rather than letting it reach an undesirable harbor.

  • 96. Lou  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:39 am

    A mistrial is not in the cards here. Mistrials happen only when a jury is/could be unduly influenced/prejudiced by evidence and testimony, i.e., unrelated prior 'bad acts', defamatory testimony, suborning perjury, and the like. Or if the jury is unable to reach a verdict,

    This is a bench (no jury) trial. The judge makes the decision alone based on the evidence presented during the trial. There can not be a mistrial.

    IF, big if, there is judicial bias and/or misconduct that would have to be specifically addressed in the appeal to the 9th Circuit.

    The D-Is, and their supporters, are playing to their echo chamber and public opinion.

  • 97. Linda  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:04 am

    If they declare a mistrial because Judge Walker didn't recuse himself, then I insist that all judges (including our Supreme Court) whose chosen religion condemns homosexuality to recuse themselves from any courtcase involving homosexual rights.

    If judge Walker is deemed incapable of an unbiased ruling, then so are they.

  • 98. lesbiansloveboies  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:05 am

    I don't think that they can declare a mistrial for any reason in this case.

  • 99. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:13 am

    If he has to recuse, then anyone married or eligible for marriage would have to recuse…..which I guess would just leave gay people who refuse to marry the opposite sex…..

  • 100. rpx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:36 am

    LOL, you msut be in IT with this type of logicical reasoning. IF, THEN, ELSE…

  • 101. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I learned Basic and was writing my own programs at the age of 9.
    My favorite program had to do with large scale dynamic systems. I had colored dots that would follow algorithms as to how there were or were not affected or how they would or would not affect other colored dots.

    The most amazing thing that I discovered was that no matter how I altered the criteria or how complex I made the system they still ultimately created a beautifully organized pattern. I am even today convinced that the human race (and all of creation ultimately) is destined to create something unimaginably beautiful….as if it hasn't already.

    I hope one day, when able, to convert all my material wealth into an organization that follows certain premises that will slowly but calmly favorably revolutionize human social systems. Some of the science is proving itself already but there is still alot to be done.

    Who knows…one day.

  • 102. dieter  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Just saw a great video about people saying gays are not natural…

    an interesting FACT about gays:

    Gays are the ONLY phenomenon in the ENTIRE universe that does not need to reproduce to keep our population
    at a constant.

    If you killed every gay person on the planet, within a generation there would be just as many if not even more gays!

    If that ain't nature..then NOTHING is.

  • 103. lesbiansloveboies  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Yup. I have absolutely no doubts…I was born homosexual.

  • 104. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:08 am

    doh!….PWND….dieter that was awesome….<3…Ronnie

  • 105. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:19 am

    That is freaking awesome dude!!! Nice point!

  • 106. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:24 am

    There are enough Americans; LGBT, Straight, Black, White, Latino, Asian, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Young and Old asking you:

    [youtube =]

  • 107. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Ronnie, I am getting a message "An error occurred, please try again later. Regarding this video.

  • 108. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:42 am

    hmm…I clicked on it and it is playing…that's wierd

  • 109. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I also get an error occurred.

  • 110. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:52 am

    seriously its playing on my trial tracker window: hold on see if this works

  • 111. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Thanks it worked for that time

  • 112. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Thanks, Ronnie! Yet another great song!

  • 113. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    You're welcome….and BTW…..I finished writing my cover of "America" from Westside Story….I call it "America" from Gayside Story…hehehe…..I'll most likely post it smorro…..<3…Ronnie

  • 114. JPM  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:28 am

    No one would question an African-American judge’s capacity to preside over a race discrimination lawsuit or a female jurist’s handling of a sexual harassment case.

    Really? How about

    No one, in this day and age, would DARE TO question an African-American judge’s capacity to preside over a race discrimination lawsuit or a female jurist’s handling of a sexual harassment case.

    I think there's plenty of people out there who would be more than willing to do so if the social mores now in place against this sort of thing weren't so strong.

    That such mores aren't as yet in play for gays is just another indication of how politically powerless and socially discriminated against gays still are.

  • 115. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:10 am

    We could have gotten a Mormon judge, which wouldn't have mattered either. This case either way is going to the 9th Circuit Court.

    What did matter during this trial was Olson, Boies and company. They were what made points here.

    If the defense loses, only the defense can look at their shameful display of proof…they *beeped*.

  • 116. David from Sandy UT  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Mormon judge? Please bite your tongue. . .completely off.

    As a personal perspective of someone who lives among the Locally Dominant Sect here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah). . .we have public officials here who have gone on record to say that they believe that they have a moral responsibility to follow the instructions of The Gang of Fifteen (the 1+2+12=15 old dudes who run the LDS organization) instead of representing the preferences and opinions of the voters in their legislative districts. I absolutely do not understand how voters can keep individuals like that in public office. Judges have a reputation far worse than the members of the Churchislature. Seriously, I think Congress should send in federal troops, disestablish the state government, and make all registered voters sign a pledge, “I shall not be stooopid when I go to the polls.”

    By the Gods, I hate this place.


  • 117. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    David from Sandy UT,

    I only just saw your post. "make all registered voters sign a pledge, 'I shall not be stooopid when I go to the polls.'" I truly laughed out loud.

  • 118. Dan Hess  |  February 15, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Which gods, out of curiosity? ^_^

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Christian based SD Family Policy Council in favor of discrimination

    Personal Note: I really like the way this writer handles the email:

    "The following is the text of the talking points and potential scenarios included in the email sent out by Mr. Hupke. Because the email was so badly written, I have cleaned up the grammar and noted misspellings with (sic). I have enclosed characters to be deleted in curly braces {}, characters to be inserted in square braces [], and clarifying text in slants //. A word in curly braces followed by a word in square braces would mean substitute the second word for the first. (I wonder if SDFPC would hire me as a copywriter? I am straight.) Mr. Hupke’s email was bulleted, but I have changed the bullets to numbers to ease referencing my comments."

  • 120. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Excellent article overall. I am also an Examiner columnist, and (along with the Sioux Falls Atheism Examiner) apparently one of the few who takes the Examiner's policies seriously. Most of the even remotely religious or political commentators take their "news beat" and turn it into a podium for berating those with whom they disagree. Yikes.


  • 121. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    LLB, I have to wonder if Hupke is even playing with a full suit of 13, much less a full deck of 52! No federal Hate Crimes legislation covering Gender identity and expression / sexual orientation? What does he call the Shepard-Byrd Act? If I am not mistaken, isn't that now law? This Examiner reporter was so right in the way he handled this email. He was compassionate, yet he laid the facts out there where anyone with a brain can read and figure it out quite easily. Thank you for posting this link.

  • 122. Frank  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:49 am

    So….if the case had been assigned to a straight judge, what would the perception had been if we all screamed "we won't get a fair trial because the judge is straight!".

    The people who are now making this claim about Judge Walker's orientation would have been laughing their asses off at us.

  • 123. Frijondi  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I wonder if it would be helpful for our side to point out that CA Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan, who dissented in the original gay marriage decision (on the grounds that overturning Prop. 22 exceeded the court's authority), and voted to uphold Prop. 8, is also rumored to be gay.

    We could go their blogs and post something like this:






  • 124. rpx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:57 am

    LLB, that article from South Dakota was hysterical! I gotta laugh at this stuff, it is so pathetic and the article is so darned funny. The author of the orignal e-mail is an idot. The section that surprised the heck out of me was the one about a boss could no longer talk to his employee about the employees sex life if this bill passes. What planet does this guy live on? I bet the guy is a farmer and doesn't have any experience of non agricultural work settings.

  • 125. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Actually, I don't think this is a very good idea, since it would only serve to prove one their points…"We are whiners" I believe we should conduct ourselves above the fray of their beating drum.

  • 126. Frijondi  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Er, David, if this is addressed to me, you *do* realize that the caps and exclamation points are tongue in cheek?

    As for the chance that any mention of Justice Corrigan could be construed as whining — that would be a very odd definition of whining.

    If the other side is going to try and claim that (allegedly) gay judges always rule in favor of gay rights, because they're just so darned biased, it should be pointed out to them that the historical record shows otherwise.

  • 127. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I think we all know what their game is – to rile-up the masses and get more money for future challenges in court. Assuming they lose this round (which looks highly likely), at the next trial the burden of proof will be upon them. Another thought occured to me too, when they lose this case, they will use the Judge's sexuality, as a reason they lost, even though Andy Pugno has claimed, the judge's sexuality is not a factor in this case. It is pathetic to believe they can be short sighted.

  • 128. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:15 am

    But they cannot bring in any more evidence, this was their moment to make their case…any further court hearings will use the evidence from this case only…right?

  • 129. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Yes, that is my understanding – does anyone remember document dump they did on day 6 or 7 of the trial. I am still wondering what was in all of those documents.

  • 130. rf  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Actually if you can get a comment on one of their blogs/websites, more power to you. Just try to be constructive and nice otherwise they'll post it as an example to rally against. Oh, and please ask them to post the trial transcripts. I'm still waiting….

  • 131. Daniel Katzin  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:17 am

    hey, sorry guys. I stop by this site once a day and scan and get what I can from it but there is just so much new material to read each day. Is Judge Walker gay or is this a rumor. I am having trouble determining that.


  • 132. Jeff  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:20 am

    He has never publicly came out that Im aware of – however its a very open secret.

  • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Proposition 8: How Many Souls Have You Saved?

    "…Yet the overtly Christian Alliance Defense Fund was started in 1994 by the likes of Campus Crusade’s Bill Bright and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson in order to inhibit the legal rights of non-Fundamentalist Christians. They’ve made an art out of claiming that individual rights are “religious opression,” even if those rights in no way impact the lives of others."

  • 134. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Quote from LLB's link: From abstinence education to school prayer, from ahistorical text books to ten commandments statues in court houses, the primary goal is to teach the word of God – a very specific God – and to win all of society into that faith.

    Here's the amazing thing to me. These "good Christians" are also up in arms about Islam and its evils … and fail to see that what they want to implement is their own version of sharia.


  • 135. Joe  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Those who assume a woman can't impartially judge a gender discrimination case are misogynist. Those who assume a black man can't impartially judge a racial discrimination case is racist. And those who assume a gay man can't impartially judge a case of discrimination against gays and lesbians are? You guessed it, homophobic.

    Isn't this exactly what we're fighting against?

  • 136. Caitlyn  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Well, the difference between Judge Walker and a black judge presiding over a race discrimination case or a woman over a sexual harassment case, is that how he rules on this case would affect him directly, not just ideologically. It would affect his personal right to marry a man he loves, whereas one of the other judges. would not be so directly affected.

    However, considering Walker's history as outlined in this article, and the fact that, as a Judge for the official court of the USA, it's HIS JOB to be fair and unbiased, and we should expect him to do his job well – it's totally bullshit to say this really will have an affect on the case.

  • 137. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:42 am

    True it shouldn't have any affect on the case….but like it has been said…If a caucasian male judge who was in a secret relationship with a woman of color was presiding over the interracial marriage case and it became public knowledge that is was in said relationship he would be deemed a bias activist judge……its very shaky ground and shame on them for attempting to use it

  • 138. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:43 am

    When women needed to have trials to get their rights there were no woman judges, when blacks sued for civil rights there were not black judges…..the analogy doesn't exactly fit.

  • 139. R Lavigueur  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:17 am

    But there have been dozens if not hundreds of cases brought before courts around the world dealing with women's rights and questions of racial discrimination since women and racial minorities have been allowed to serve as judges. Issues of gender and minority rights still exist, and its a little amusing to imply that women especially don't need to go to trial these days to get their rights. In many cases you are right, but in those cases the judges still would have gained from a specific outcome: ruling against the people in question. That they were allowed to make rulings implies that we expect judges to put their personal feelings aside.

    I would be shocked if no American judge has ever had to rule on a case where they stood to gain from one outcome or suffer from the opposite outcome; the issue of sexual orientation really isn't all that much different.

  • 140. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Caitlyn, I disagree. What if a the race discrimination case involved a question of whether or not the (racially) discriminatory practices of an organization in its admission policies? Couldn't it be said that the black judge might want to join that club? What if the case involved affirmative action policies of a university? Couldn't it be said that the judge's children might want to apply to that university?

    I don't think there's anything about this set of facts that distinguishes it from the others offered as examples (gender and race)

  • 141. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Here is an example of how the rumors spread and become "truth". I use the word "truth", since all it amounts to only speculation and inuendo.

  • 142. rpx  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:10 am

    @Kathleen post #69
    This is a FANTASTIC link you provided on the legal docs.
    I was looking at the earlier ones but then skipped to the bottom. This document… Filed Fefruary 5th tells us more about these mysterious docs we keep hearing about and the "Discovery" issue. I did a quick read and my take is this
    The First Amendment the freedom of association says that you don't have to disclose docs for your association if you are involved in a political battle.
    Judge Walker said that had to produce becasue the court case is to determin is there is animosity by the voters which would make us a protected class and I think that also ahs something to do with if strict scrutiny is used or not (not sure on this point)
    Anyway the Defendent Intervienres objected and appealed the Judges sweeping discovery order agains them. The won something but i am not sure what, but they still ahd to produce much more correspondence then they wanted to.

    At the same time our side asked for discovery of their side their side did the same thing. The asked the ACLU and Equality California and another one for everything they had, jsut like our side asked for everything from Well the ACLU and Equality California didn't turn over hardly anything using the same First Amendment argument that used. So their side says you can't have it both ways and asked the Judge to compel the ACLU and EqualityCalifornia to turn over the docs becasue after all they had to. It's only 19 pages and it does show what a very difficult court case this is behind the scenes, the stuf we don't see in trial.

    Thhis shows me that this is a much more complicated case than I thought it was. There are competing Constituitional rights here that the Judge is ruling on. This is the kind of stuff where we could win the case but loose on appeal. The Appallet Judges may rule that Judge Walker made a wrong decision about letting in evidence. The trial was over practically by Feb 5th (or maybe it was over) adn the other side did not get the docs they wanted from the ACLU and Equality California. Further more they say that Judge Walker set this up for an acclerated trial and accelerated discovery process and becasue he wanted to do evrything fast track their side is hurt by rushing it through when they didn't get docs that could have helped them.

    This is much more complicated than what we read and saw on the trial reenectments.

  • 143. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:48 am

    This is really nothing new from them, they have been crying foul since the trial began. Thanks for the link – I plan to go and see what I can dig-up.

  • 144. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:23 am

    I don't know if anybody watches the new law show on ABC, "The Deep End" but I am watching it right now here in NJ and the storyline is soooo relevant to LGBT Rights… just started 20 min. ago but their client is a college girl on scholarship who the school just found out she has a y-chromosome…..nothing yet about her being transexual but I am on the edge of my seat….<3…Ronnie

  • 145. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Woiw, will have to watch that one tonight, thanks Ronnie.

  • 146. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am

    no problem……it is really good, jaw dropping, and hits LGBT and all discrimination right on the nose…..<3…Ronnie

  • 147. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Incidentally Pulp Fiction is on AMC.

  • 148. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:54 am

    "Griffin|Schake’s team of consultants has political campaign and fundraising experience that covers local, state and national government, including City Hall, Statehouse, Capitol Hill and The White House. Griffin| Schake has also worked on some of the nation’s largest initiative campaigns and has taken on the toughest fights against the most entrenched, well-financed interests."

    This is from one of the documents – what I am getting is Prop8 is backed by a conglomerate of teams that have argued similar cases successfully in the past.

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

    Well is its the same people who worked on this trial then their success in the past it a moot point…..are they the ones who are working on this case?…..I'm confused.

  • 150. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:02 am

    I think what these documents show is that from the beginning the PropH8 team had a deceptive plan to confront the court challenges. I dunno…anybody else?

  • 151. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Yes, the discovery issue is complicated. That's why I am hoping we'll get a post devoted to it. I *think* in a nutshell, our side said these documents are relevant because they go to the question of animus in appealing to the voters, but we are claiming that the same docs on the "no on 8" side aren't relevant to the defense's case. I *think* that's the condensed what's going on.

    There continue to be motions and judicial rulings in the case, even though the testimony phase is over. In fact a ruling by Judge Spero was just filed today and I'd like to know what it said (it's not posted at that site – nothing past Feb 5).

    And yes, I asked that question about whether the rulings on admission of evidence could prove to be grounds for appeal and whether new evidence could be brought in at the appeal level because of this. I *suspect* if the appeals court held that certain evidence should have been (or conversely, should not have been) allowed that the case would be remanded in light of the new evidentiary rulings.

  • 152. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Thanks, Kathleen, for the explanation. I also got from the link the PropH8 side is 9 Equality California also argues that the multiple letters exchanged between it and Proponents, should not be admissable as evidence.
    in which each set out its firm position on the issues surrounding the subpoenas, did not
    constitute a sufficient effort to meet-and-confer. See, e.g., Doc # 472-6 at 9 (letter from Equality
    California expressing refusal to produce). Yet in the unique circumstances of this case, the Court
    has not required more than an exchange of letters, and has overruled this very objection when
    posed by Proponents in response to Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek a compelling order. See, e.g., Doc #
    297 (objecting to Plaintiffs’ failure to engage in meaningful meet-and-confer before requesting
    leave to file an omnibus motion to compel); Hr’g of Dec. 16, 2009, Tr. at 8, 35-85 (entertaining
    issues raised in Plaintiffs letters seeking leave to file omnibus motion to compel); id. at 58:25-
    59:10 (objecting that Plaintiffs have not provided specificity in document requests following
    Ninth Circuit’s opinion); Hr’g of Jan. 6, 2010, Tr. at 77:18-21 (noting that Plaintiffs failed to
    provide any specificity in objections to privilege log before filing motion to compel); id. at 83-84
    (allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel to raise objections to specific entries on the privilege log for the first
    time at hearing on motion to compel).
    Equality California also asserts that Proponents failed to “‘set forth each request in full,
    followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto.’” Doc # 546 at 7. Yet this
    simply ignores the content of Proponents’ motion. See Doc # 472 at 3; Doc # 472-2 (subpoenas);
    Doc # 472-4 (objections to subpoenas). Moreover, once again Equality California’s argument
    runs head first into the practice already established in this case. Plaintiffs never even filed a
    proper motion to compel and did not approach technical compliance with Rule 37-2. Nonetheless,
    the Court heard and granted the motion.

  • 153. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:05 am

    The other link in the document I just found – I don't the linkage, since this one is to Armour Medical Group?

  • 154. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Not sure what link you mean, David

  • 155. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:12 am

    sorry, I don't understand why there is linkage to this item in the record .

  • 156. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:13 am

    in the "document record"

  • 157. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:21 am

    I'm feeling dense. Still don't understand where you're seeing this link. Is it one of the hyperlinks at the page I posted? Is it a link in one of the court documents or filings? (if so, which one?)

  • 158. JimiG  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Such unfounded attacks on the Judge how silly, wonder what they would say if he went toe of Tam's churches. That would just be really funny if they discovered he was a devote Catholic.

    It is sad, I don't think ss supporters would cry if he was a heterosexual judge, we would have expected it. Still ironic.

  • 159. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Yeah – and until his 'outing' I had assumed he was straight. Strange, I assumed he was straight from the beginning, and I still believed he'd do his job fairly as a judge.

    WTF is the matter with these people?

  • 160. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    They are grasping at straws. They have come to realze that they most likely will not win in the legal arena, so they are gearing up for another run to the polls, and trying to stir up all the animosity, fear, and superstition they can. All this announcement does is give them what they see as ammunition to do that with.

  • 161. dieter  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:13 am

    on the phone right now with Dan Choi, and Gillibrand….

  • 162. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:17 am

    This also from the documents.

    As those responses make clear, the No-on-8 Groups are
    withholding tens of thousands of responsive, nonprivileged documents. See Doc # 543 at 18
    (identifying at least “61,046 potentially relevant communications” being withheld by the ACLU);
    Doc # 546 at 4 (identifying “50,000 messages” in Equality California’s possession that are potentially
    responsive); Doc # 542-1 at 2-3 (identifying at least twenty persons who potentially have
    responsive documents). This Court has rejected the grounds the No-on-8 Groups have advanced for
    noncompliance with the subpoenas. Accordingly, Proponents respectfully submit the following
    further points in support of their Motion and in reply to the Responses.

  • 163. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Keep in mind, that the statement that these are "responsive, nonpriviliged documents" are just be the way defendants are characterizing them. It's up to the court to decide whether they are responsive and/or nonprivileged.

  • 164. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Also remember these docs may have nothing to do with the issues and might not have any bearing on the case anyway.

  • 165. JimiG  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:21 am

    This is not the first time that the SF chronicle has tried to destroy a persons reputation by making accusations especially concerning sexual orientation. They have made it clear than when possible make a point selling paper to destroy innocent peoples lives. They are actually supporting one of the claims and showing how the LGBT community is continually harassed and made afraid to publicly acknowledge sexual orientation. Which no one should have to do.
    The Judge was appointed by Reagan not by any means a liberal.

    So lets be nice and loving and the more they attack the LGBT community the more people will realize like this trial how they create misleading stories and lies.

  • 166. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

    By the way, this all appears to have happened in December 2009 and I am sorry, I don't understand why all of the confusion, as to admission of evidence.

  • 167. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:29 am

    It's no so much confusion about admission of evidence – it's a difference of legal opinion as to what must be admitted into the record (or what is allowed to be admitted).

    Each side will request certain evidence that the other side has in its possession or control – i.e. "discovery." The other side then must either produce the evidence or make a claim that it has legal grounds for not producing it. When there is a conflict between the two sides as to what must be produced, then the court has to resolve the conflict by making a ruling.

    This often involves a back and forth between the two sides, trying to persuade the court of the "rightness" of its argeements. That's what you're seeing in these filings. It's the two sides arguing back and forth to convince the court.

  • 168. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Okay, thanks Kathleen. Unless I am wrong, Judge Walker ruled on the what was admissable and what would not be admitted, didn't he?

  • 169. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Then what I get from that is that because prop ha8te are the ones on trial anything that constitutes as evidentiary support point towards discrimination of LGBT people is relevant but most of the documents from the plaintiffs are irrelevant….am I right?

  • 170. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Walker ruled on some things during the testimony phase of the trial. But for reasons I don't entirely understand, it seems that the questions raised re discovery are being decided by Judge Spero. Again, it was part of my question about discovery (why Spero) that I posed in my post above. I'm hoping we'll get a post on it by Brian or someone else with greater legal knowledge than mine.

    In way of explanation, I have a law degree, but as a result of becoming ill during law school & continuing to live with a chronic illness, I never practiced law. It's been 15 years since I sat in a classroom and, frankly, procedure was a bit of a snoozer even then – I know how important it is, but it was deadly dull to sit through the lectures.

  • 171. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:47 am

    OK, thanks Kathleen, but from what I read in these documents, the court has already ruled on these documents…maybe I read too fast or didn't comprehend what I read. I dunno.

  • 172. Buddha Buck  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:25 am


    Judge Spiro is a Magistrate Judge, which is a judge who has limited powers to assist a District Court Judge in his or her duties. There are a lot of routine motions and orders involved in discovery, more than Judge Walker can deal with while maintaining the rest of his workload. So Magistrate Judges are hired to do this routine grunt work. Judge Spiro works under the supervision of Judge Walker (for this case), and ultimately Judge Walker is responsible for the orders that Judge Spiro issues, but there is rarely cause for a District Court Judge to overrule his/her Magistrate Judges.

  • 173. Kathleen  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:56 am


    Thank you for the explanation re Spero. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify for me.

  • 174. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Yes and no, you will remember during the trial, there was a point at which Judge Walker asked for ruling on evidence – he agreed to admit documents from both sides, but questioned the relevancy of some the Prop8 documents.

  • 175. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:39 am

    He agreed to admit some of the documents, even though we argued relevancy.

  • 176. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Ok….but I still think that prop ha8te should stop their betching…they are the ones on trial….but heaven forbid it was reversed and we said anything…..move to strike……hypocrites…..<3…Ronnie

  • 177. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:45 am

    LOL, thanks I agree! These documents have already been ruled upon, so I don't see the relevancy in this thread. Still, can we get some explanation in a thread tomorrow?

  • 178. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:46 am

    It's my understanding that there are still documents that the D-Is have asked for (asked for them months ago) that plaintiffs have refused to produce. So as far as I know, this is still an ongoing dispute.

  • 179. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Where did you see that? Can you post it here?

  • 180. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:59 am

    If you look at the documents listed at the website I posted, the most recent (from Feb 5) is document #584, a "Reply to Opposition re 472 MOTION to Compel"

    What that means is that the D-Is filed a Motion to Compel (i.e. a demand for documents from the plaintiffs), the plaintiffs filed an "Opposition" to their motion (said uh-uh – we don't have to give you those) and now D-Is have filed #584 (replying to the plaintiff's claim that they don't have to produce the requested documents).

    Also, I'm signed up on a list serve that notifies me whenever there is new activity in the case – mostly new filings in the case. I was notified by that listserve today that document #589, "ORDER. Signed by Judge Spero" was filed today. I'm guessing this is a ruling regarding discovery, because that seems to be what Spero is handling. There was also notice today of a "Continuing Hearing on Dft-Intervenor's Motion to Compel. Motion Hearing re-set for 2/25/2010 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco" Again, I'm guessing this is Spero's courtroom.

    But since I don't have access to the actual documents I'm only guessing on the above.

    However, all of that suggests that the battle over discovery is ongoing.

  • 181. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Thanks, for the explanation – anybody have any clue as to how this play-out?

  • 182. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Kathleen: is there a way we can track this listserv -ie is there a URL we can go to to subscribe?

  • 183. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Jon T, I would gladly share this information if it weren't for the fact that I have no idea how I registered in the first place! Somewhere, I saw information about the listserve and registered. Unfortunately because of some computer problems I'm trying to sort out wrt my email client, I've lost access to a huge chunk of emails, including the one that I sent in order to subscribe to the list.

    I *think* I found the information on how to subscribe at this website:

  • 184. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Kathleen: Very nice, thanks! I found the 'email subscription' service from your link:

    Wow, what a busy guy πŸ™‚

    Thanks again!

  • 185. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Ok, our links are the same – nice web magic there. To get to the subscription page, select 'SUBSCRIBE' on the left menu.

    I didn't know anyone ran listserv sites anymore πŸ™‚

  • 186. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    John T,

    I know, huh? I sort of expect to have to retrieve documents using gopher.

  • 187. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Kathleen: Oh god, next you'll be talking about WAIS πŸ™‚

  • 188. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    somewhere around here I have FORTRAN for use on my old XT that was souped up with a 8087 coprocessor. … and I'm even waaaay older than that.

    Meant to warn you – if you subscribe to that listserve, expect to be bombarded with notices on some days. You might want to use the digest option.

  • 189. Misken  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:49 am

    If we are to believe NOM's arguments that marriage would affect everyone, then there would be no judge who could hear the case. So gay or straight, who cares? What hypocrites…

  • 190. JimiG  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Once Again thank all of you for this site and comments there is now way I can express my love for all of you and you have no way of knowing the support I have found through your comments and following this trial. I will be 48 tomorrow my ss parents have been together for 46 years. I have 2 sisters by the other parent. This site the evidence, your comments have given me hope beyond words. I am proud to be the son of SS couple and I have hope that someday my sisters and I will not have to explain anything to anyone or worry about what we say because you never know when someone is looking to destroy your family members carrier/reputation over their orientation.

    I am no longer a child but you are not only fighting for your rights you are fighting for the rights of children like me. For my parents and my sisters. For myself, my wife and my children I thank you and you have helped me and given me more than you can ever imagine. Thank you,

    I have been on an emotional roller coaster just hoping and praying that equal rights and truth will win the day.

    And thank you for explaining all the legal stuff I get lost.

  • 191. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    JimiG, Thank YOU for posting here. It's so good to hear from someone who is now an adult who was raised by ss parents! I mean, we all know the *studies* – we all know in our "gut" what we know to be true, but it's just WONDERFUL to hear from someone that makes the question of children so REAL.

    The general public has to realize that this isn't a fight over abstract notions – it's about real people, real couples, real children, REAL FAMILIES!

    And as much as I get disheartened at times when I read all the bile spewing forth from the fundamentalists, I still believe that truth and justice will be the rule in the long run.

  • 192. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Ahh Kathleen – never forget that. I do firmly believe that truth *always* wins out in the end. History proves it so. IMO of course πŸ™‚

    So say we all?

  • 193. fiona64  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    Happy birthday, JimiG!


  • 194. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Happy Birthday and thank you for sharing your experiences wtih us.

  • 195. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Ok so picture a 25yo Drag Queen Marilyn Monroe:

    Happy Birth…Day…to you…….Happy……Birthday… you….Happy Birth……Day……Mr. JimiG……Happy Birth…..Day….to….you!……Make a wish… blow!!!!!

    hehehe….<3….Ronnie (I couldn't help it!)…. ; )

  • 196. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:05 am

    OH…I am a lesbian with a drag queen trapped in her head.

    Happy 48 JimiG

  • 197. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:53 am

    Can't wait to see the comments on this article. But so many of us can relate to Hugo. I personally wanted trains and trucks, big trucks.

  • 198. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    First of all, JimiG, Happy Birthday. Secondly. The support you state that you have found here at this site is the support you and your entire family have deserved all along. I too have found a lot of support and encouragement here, to the point that I am now out on FB as well as in the real world. I have not been unfriended by anyone on FB. In fact, I have even gained new friends on FB because of this site. WE are a family and a community here, and I think I speak for the vast majority here when I say we will not give up this fight until all Americans are free to marry the person they love, whether it be two men, two women, or a man and a woman. When one person is under the heel of tyranny in any form, all of us are under the same tyrannical heel. And it is only be standing togethr as one, and marching in our communities and across this nation, that we gain our voice. It is only by uniting under te same banner that we can gain the strength to show those who do not yet know us that we are everyday people who want the opportunity to live our everyday lives wihout fear that someone in the government is going to tear our families apart, wthout fear taht someone will be allowed to beat us into a bloody pulp and get away with it. WE can only achieve these goals by coming together as a natonwide community of common souls. That is what this site and the FB groups it has birthed has done. It has made us into that nationwide community, and we will not give up until all are free. We must stop this social disease before it goes any further.
    And yes, HOMOPHOBIA IS A SOCIAL DISEASE. Let us all work together toward its eradication.

  • 199. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Can I get Hallelu?!!!!!

  • 200. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm


    (How's that, dopty-son?)

  • 201. David Kimble  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm


  • 202. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm


    So say we all.

  • 203. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    So shall it be written…….lol……<3…Ronnie

  • 204. Kathleen  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Yay! A BSG reference! (my nerdiness is showing)

  • 205. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Kathleen: As is mine πŸ™‚


  • 206. Ronnie  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Yeeeeaaa…its rising!!!!!!………a new FB group…..get your head out of the gutters:

    The FB Group: I bet we can find 1,000,000 People who Support Same Sex Marriage – membership number as of 11:33pm eastern U.S. time is

    1,648,335…..yesterday at this time it was at 1,544,090…..It's rising!!!!…..the numbers….geeze…you guys…seriously…SCA!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 207. rpx  |  February 12, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I joined that this week myself. Judge Walker was impressed with the 131,000 signatures on the letters to televise this trial. I imagine our politicians are goign to be impressed after millions sign up for "bet we can find 1,000,000 People who Support Same Sex Marriage" on facebook. I'm pretty carefull about what I put my real name on as my daughter has the same last name and it is not a common name. I don't want to out her as she can get fired for no toher reason than she is gay. But she signed up for it so I figured then it was okay for me also.

  • 208. dieter  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    People this is pretty cut and dry..we win either way. If Walker sides with US..we won…if he sides with THEM, we have grounds to appeal based on their own claims of Walker being Biased, and an activist judge… if they win, they surely cannot accept his decision as a biased and activist judge, based on their OWN statements of fact.

  • 209. Linda  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm


  • 210. Chuck S  |  February 11, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    So, it appears to me that what we really ned is a bisexual judge…. they would certainly be fair to both sides, right????

  • 211. David B  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Hmmm…. can we verify an opposite sex relationship for Judge Walker at ome point in his past?? Then we can point out that he's actually bisexual and they certainly can't complain about that, can they?

  • 212. JonT  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    David B: I don't think it really matters. For them to say he's gay, and therefore biased would be as silly as us saying he's straight, and therefore biased against us.

    I think that is why you do not see PM pushing this line too much – their surrogates will do that for them in the media – but even then, it's primarily for the base.

  • 213. Gordie  |  February 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Good idea Chuck… but I am quite certain that anything short of 100% straight will not set well with opponents of same-gender marriage.

    Do you suppose these sort of people, who think Walker would be biased, think that straight judges in similar court cases in the past HAVE BEEN biased (in their favor)?

  • 214. Asya  |  February 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Here is another really great article in the Advocate from a constitutional law scholar about Judge Walker’s sexuality being a non-issue. (I also happen to babysit his daughter. He’s the dean of the UCI law school and a super guy.)

  • 215. Felyx  |  February 11, 2010 at 8:07 am

    The article makes me think that if there was any effect at all, it would be for the 9th to pay extra special attention to not regard his orientation at all.
    If anything, they would be even more likely to just do their job like they always do.
    Seems the legal worlds response is one of underwhelming disinterest.

    Eat that Pug-Nosed!

  • 216. Sagesse  |  February 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    This is really, really, really warped, so forgive me. But remember when the defense was going on and on about how gays and lesbians have attained all these high profile positions and elected office… and how that demonstrates political power….

    And one of those positions of power turns out to be a presidential appointment as a federal court judge in the 9th district… guy by the name of Walker. Presidential appointment and senate confirmation and everything. And he goes along for about 20 years and seems quite competent and respected and all.

    But he can't adjudicate this one case about constitutional protection for gays and lesbians because he might be biased. Now that's political power.

  • 217. PDXAndrew  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:35 am

    OMG, Sagessee. A very good observation. Just yet another example of the Reich-wing's hypocrisy.

    Irony is so ironic.


  • 218. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    Should government get out of the marriage business?</strong
    Gay rights » Civil unions for all could be a compromise that helps churches and the state.

    I tend to agree with Evan Wolfson in the article. He states that there is really no need to change the way marriage laws now stand, with the exception of the inclusion of same-sex couples. We are not saying that we will demand churches that don't believe in same-sex couples to marry us, there are already churches out there that will marry us.

    Changing the laws that all heterosexual and homosexual marriages would be considered civil unions, but hetero marriages in churches are 'traditional marriage' complicates things.

  • 219. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 11, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    oops I forgot to end the strong, sorry everyone.

  • 220. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Yes, thank you for sharing this article with us. I, too, agree wtih Woflson. I do understand the point made about the Churches. Still, this does not totally answer the question or end the debate, "we are still separate and unequal".
    Love, David

  • 221. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:43 am

    "Something in love between two people alone – is the key to what we must achieve in the world of eight billion. All of us must protect the right of all of us to make a life of love."

    Powerful words from Reverend Billy:

  • 222. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:01 am

    And today there is also this article:

    Commentary: This minister is standing on the side of love

    "We know that exclusion breeds prejudice, which becomes hatred. We seek to harness the unifying and transformative power of love to counter oppression."

    I am glad that these people are speaking up.

  • 223. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:00 am


    (I had to add spaces to line things up…not sure how well they will line up when I submit).

    Q. Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?

    — Legal —- — Illegal —
    NET Strongly NET Strongly
    All 47 31 50 42

    Democrat 60 45 39 32
    Independent 50 32 48 38
    Republican 27 13 69 58

    Northeast 55 41 39 31
    Midwest 48 28 50 39
    South 37 26 61 52
    West 57 34 41 34

    Age 18-29 65 51 33 26
    Age 30-64 47 28 51 42
    Age 65+ 30 20 66 57

    There is also a link at the bottom of the article that links to polling through the years. You can certainly see the trend slowly moving towards citizens of the US believing in Same-Sex Marriage.

    I found question 33 interesting, not much change in family members between 1998 and 2010:

    Q. Do you yourself have a friend, family member, or acquaintance who is gay or lesbian, or not?

    Yes No No opinion
    2/8/10 63 36 1
    8/27/98 59 40 1

  • 224. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:17 am

    That was really good…thank you LLB…..I like to point out that they state the numbers fro those under 18 which is even more favorable for legalization(somebody posted a poll a while back but I can't remember who) so since I don't have that info at hand don't quote me on that…its just an observation on my part…the high school I went to had very little support for Equality Marriage and now 7 years later the anti-equality is almost non-existant… ….anywho, another thing the article mentioned was that :

    "Civil unions draw broader support. Two-thirds now say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the same legal rights as married couples."……….If only they would listen to us and realized the elephant in the room…..We will not except separate but equal, so really you should just mind your own business and let us FRIKIN MARRY!!!!!…<3…Ronnie

  • 225. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:22 am

    I meant they don't state the numbers for those who are under 18….lol…..sorry I have't had my coffee yet……<3…Ronnie

  • 226. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:56 am

    I would like to see that poll broken down into Men and Women. Personally I see more women in favor of same-sex marriage than men.

  • 227. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:07 am


  • 228. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Um, this opinion piece shows how ignorant some people really are. But what's strange is the last paragraph (not sure if she realized what she said…heterosexuals having sex in public…I think she meant publicly stating they are heterosexual.)

  • 229. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Kick Homophobia Out of Football. A film from the FA and Kick It Out.

    [youtube =]

  • 230. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Here is a link to an article I wrote for the website referenced – of note, the comments have been overwhelmingly positive.

  • 231. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Filmmaker: Prop 8 movie's distribution rights sold

    "Filmmaker Reed Cowan says "8: The Mormon Proposition" will hit theaters this spring and a DVD will follow. Cowan says he sold the film's North American distribution rights to Red Flag Releasing. "

  • 232. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Sweet…….and their lies will be released unto the world…..You can't hide anymore Ha8ters….lol……<3…Ronnie

  • 233. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Well, I believe it is time we get our version of the movie out there, too!

  • 234. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:26 am

    oops, this is our version…so sorry!

  • 235. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Thanks, LLB. I will hve to wait for the DVD because my husband doesn't like the crowds at theatres, but I will be getting several (or maybe several dozen) copies, not only for us, but for people we know, and I look forward to the next time Mormons try to come to my house after I get the DVD. Will they be in for a treat!

  • 236. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:18 am

    I am with your husband on disliking crowds. I will be awaiting the DVD too.

  • 237. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:20 am

    I recently sat down with my mother (88 years old) [she is Mormon] and had a discussion with her about Mormon Church's involvement in Prop8. I told her, what I had learned – the Sunday services were occupied with Prop8, for months. She looked surprised, but I told her I had learned this from another source, she admitted it was true. I then asked her, "How can you sit in Church and listen to them preach hatred, when I am your son, who is gay?" Her response was less than accepting – she said, "You believe one way and I believe another." I, then asked her, did she realize how it made me feel to know that her Church could condemn me. Her response was again, "I love you, David, you are my son, but I don't agree with what you do."

  • 238. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Hard to comment on this, words fail me. I guess I couldn't go through this morning without crying once.

    I will stick with the positive, your mother does love you.

  • 239. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:25 am

    David K…..what you need to do next is ask her how would you feel is they killed me because I am Gay….and then show her all the info on which they clearly condone this act of anti-god….<3….Ronnie

  • 240. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:33 am

    David, words fail me.

    If I were there, I would give you an enormous hug.


  • 241. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Thanx, fiona64, I could use about now.
    Love, David

  • 242. Kathleen  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:32 am

    David, I too had a cry. I'm so sorry. And I wish I could give you a hug. I'm so, so, sorry that you have to deal with this religious bs from your family.

  • 243. Ozymandias ('ca  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:07 am

    David, I'm so sorry. This is, unfortunately, fairly typical of the bizarre disconnect I see. I guess it comes down to people feel more comfortable denouncing homosexuality, and just don't want to admit that they're also denouncing the homosexual.



  • 244. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Thank you, all, for your comments. I find it bizarre, at times, these are the people among who live? This is the other reason, I see it as being important that everyone come-out, since it gives us more visibility. I have made the comment before, I understand for some people this is simply not possible, yet by staying in the closet, it really does our community a disservice, since it feeds into their belief, we skulk about at night and "feed upon their children".

  • 245. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Dear David:

    The community life pastor at the MCC congregation where I participate says that the closet is a spiritual tomb. It's where people stay when their spirits are dying. πŸ™

    I can only imagine the pain involved in that kind of life. I find myself trying to live quietly (as opposed to living out loud, like Emile Zola says artists should do) because it's "more appropriate" or "more ladylike" or "more …" something. It is easier to be quiet sometimes and keep your pain inside, but as Rev. Sky points out, that's how your spirit dies.

    I wish I could do more than tell you that I sympathize and empathize. My parents don't "get" me either, I don't think … and I've still got it easy by comparison. πŸ™


  • 246. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:34 am

    to David @ #242. YOu are so right, David. Remaining in the closet is, unfortunately, all too often the only recourse many of us feel we have, and yet, the more of us who leave those closets behind, the stronger our community becomes, and the fewer of us are limited to that option as being the only one that is safe. It is particularly bad here in my area, due to the military presence. Hopefully with the repeal of DADT, and the passage of RFMA and ENDA, that will begin to change. Also, by remaining in the closet, it does a great disservie to those who do stay in the closet. How can you reach out for help if you are in the closet and don't know how to find that help?

  • 247. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:54 am

    I really get the sense she is embarrassed that I am gay, but guess what? I am gay, was born gay, and will be gay always. I read some other comments here that people share they were born gay, (Ronnie, many thanx). Unfortunately, according to their God, this can't be true! These people hide behind their religion and wield it, as if it were a shield. Their inability to see beyond anything they cannot understand clouds their vision and at times turns them into bigots. Many of them are well-meaning, yet because they cannot comprehend that someone is born gay, they choose instead to shout and yell racial and gay epithets, as if their God sanctified their words. I am reminded of a scripture "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is pointless to have a discussion with any of these people, since they very quickly degrade into the realm of the obscure and oblique. Their minds have been conditioned to believe what they have read and what they have been told about what the Bible says. I have a neighbor, who has two brothers, who are gay – (he is Seventh Day Adventist). He understands his brothers were born gay, but refuses to acknowledge they are correct. He calls it a "lifestye choice". I said to him once, I don't believe it is a choice, there was never any choice for me. End of conversation. I really wish, the Bible could be taken out of the context, when discussing the GLBT community, but it has been engrained in their thought processes. A court of law does not consider "religious arguments", when it comes to deciding a case. My mother is one of many of what I have dubbed, "Mormon minions", since they narrowly view the world in a bubble. They believe every word that is spewed out of the mouth of any of their General Authorities (Prophet, Quorom of the Twelve Apostles, and Quorom of the Seventies) and believe their words are inspired by their God. I find it revolting they can sit in Church on Sunday and listen to hatred preached. I have studied many religions throughout my life and have found all of them to be lacking. What is ironic from my perspective is the Mormon Church believes they have the total truth, yet they worship on Sunday. When I point out to them, Sunday is not the correct day and show them in their Bible. It is a "creation Sabbath", not a "resurrection Sabbath. Christ came not the change the law, but to fulfill the law. When I show them this, their response, is "what difference does it make." At this point, I just turn and shake my head in disbelief.
    Love, David

  • 248. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Can I get a Hallelu?!!!

  • 249. Felyx  |  February 12, 2010 at 4:06 am

    I am glad I never memorized the book of Mormon….I think that would have driven me insane.

  • 250. rpx  |  February 12, 2010 at 5:14 am

    David, I think your post makes a very good point of why this trial and SSM for GLBT's is so important. When your own mother see the governement say that your being gay is okay and that you have equal rights, and can marry like anyone else, that is going to go a long way in softning her. Also do you have a serious BF? If so do you could talk to her about things you do together and how happy he makes you. You could also say, in a nice way, "Mom when you are long gone I need my own spouce just as you have/had dad" I know that seeing my children with thier gay BFs & Gfs made me realize that they really are gay and they are happy, and that they need a partner in life also. My kids talked about their BFs & GFs with me and that made a difference. It also helped that they both have found really great partners/spouces. I mean really what is not to like?

  • 251. Polydactyl  |  February 12, 2010 at 5:28 am

    David, that is so heartbreaking πŸ™

    I wonder, if she doesn't agree with "what you do," why she thinks you do it? Does she think you could be straight if you just tried? Does she think you should be consigned to a stressful, unhappy life in the closet? Does she think you can choose what makes you happy?

  • 252. bJason  |  February 12, 2010 at 6:31 am

    My mother (UBER-fundamentalist) acts the same way. Threatened to move to Canada when the Georgia Constitutional Amendment passed. Her response… "Maybe you should".

  • 253. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Ronnie, I have had similar discussions with her about this and even told her about when I lived in the Tri-Cities and had the "midnight callers, who beat the hell out of me and left me for dead", not once, but 3 different times. She lives in a bubble and can only see what she wants to see and hear. I find this kind of life depressingly sadistic. BTW, I live with her, as her caregiver.

  • 254. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Then no offense….she's in ingrate…I love my mother…but if she just ignored murder and bashing that would be it for me…..<3…Ronnie

  • 255. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I asked her, if she wanted me to stay – Her response – "Why yes, I love you". I really get the feeling she does love me in some way, but while having the same discussion, I asked her how many of her friends, she thought knew, I was gay? She said, "None of them." I told her, "No, Mom, most of your friends know, I am gay". To which, she had no comment. I try to understand, she does come from a generation, where things, like this were simply not discussed. Also, my father, called us, "God damn f***ing faggots." Growing up, I always had to hide who I was and it became difficult for me, as a boy. My mother never questioned anything he said or did. I believe it goes to her childhood, her mother and father divorced, when she was 13 years old and she always said, she did not want that for her children. I replied, I felt she would have been better to have divorced him. My mother has always lived in a bubble. Even when we had welts on our bodies, she could bring herself to admit, they were caused by my father.

  • 256. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Now it's getting beyond ridiculous. I can't even quote from the article. Apparently they think about homosexual sex more than I do, and I am a homosexual!

    I don't believe for one moment that in Nashua they showed two men having sex! What crap!

  • 257. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:35 am

    The anti-equality crowd will say anything. I had someone say to me on the SacBee that "A gay man in a coffee shop told me that he only adopted kids to molest them."

    My response: "Really? Did you report him to the police?"

    Of course, he hadn't … because it was bee-ess. When all you have on your side is lies, well …


  • 258. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:37 am

    What is *up* with their obsession with what some (but not all) gay men get up to? (I never see similar obsessions with lesbians.) Furthermore, if they really think no straight couples do the same thing, they really are living in a vacuum.


  • 259. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:58 am

    fiona64, I read recently (sorry can't remember where) that most sexual abuse cases are commited by heterosexuals.

  • 260. fiona64  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:01 am

    David, you're correct. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. It's not about sexual orientation, it's about access. As I've said many times, parents have far more to worry about from their own family members, the minister or the scoutmaster when it comes to molestation than they do about some random LGBT person on the street.


  • 261. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:06 am

    thanx for the link to the article…I read Psychology Today regularly…my mind doesn't work as well as it once did…hmm, wonder if I can trade it in on a newer model? (chuckles)

  • 262. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:24 am

    And fiona, you are so right. Pedophilia IS all about access. It is also about power. The pedophile chooses children o rape s that he or she can feel like a powerful individual, all because he or she feels utterly powerless otherwise. And when you feel that level of powerlessness, you will stop at nothing to make the child remain silent, even to planning the method of the child's murder if the child reports you. I wish I could say differently, but I speak from experience. My adoptive "father" had 27 bullets for his .357 magnum longnose that literally had my name on them in case I ever told. He drank himself into an early grave, and I was finally strong enough about a decade later to tell everything that happened. Or at least the parts that my mind has reoened to me that were blocked in order to keep me alive long enough to be able to reach out to other victims and help them become survivors and begin to thrive once again.

  • 263. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Yeah right….if that was being shown in schools it would have made national news…..there would be videos of it on youtube, sexting going viral like crazy……What age do they think we are living in?………FOOLS!!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

  • 264. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Yes, I agree, Ronnie and btw, I didn't see any proof presented at the meeting that any of this was based in fact, but again spurious accusations. I really wish someone would call them on it, when they make accusations, show me the proof!

  • 265. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:33 am

    I think she was lying. There is NOT one story, google news or otherwise on this. ONLY what she said. IMHO, to get reaction, she made it up.

  • 266. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Actually, someone just needs to call the Nashua School District and ask them.

  • 267. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Yeah, that's was my opinion, too! Isn't there enough trouble in the world without making more?

  • 268. Felyx  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:50 am

    No point in calling them up. Do you think the media will really want to run a story on a lying politician? No, no there is just no point in stirring up anti-homophobia….LOL!

  • 269. JonT  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Well, we could ask them if an investigation at this school has started right? I'm no lawyer, but I strongly suspect that showing pornography to 10yr olds is probably illegal right? So if her story is true (which of course it isn't), this investigation would be a big boon to her little bigoted mind right? right?? πŸ™‚

  • 270. Kathleen  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Wow! Yeah, I'm guessing there are LOTS of things she wouldn't want done to her that many hetero couples enjoy! I love Joe.My.God's headline for the vid. Did you notice the woman sitting to her left? While the Rep was talking, she leaned over and wrote a note on someone else's papers. Wonder what she said? (she looked none too pleased with the tirade)

    Wow. Wow. Wow.

  • 271. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Yeah, I caught that – too bad we couldn't see what the note said.

  • 272. JonT  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:00 am

    It's also too bad we couldn't force her to reveal the mother's name, the school, the teacher, etc… But of course she was just making it up. Aren't these people supposed to tell the truth in these types of meetings?

    Just more lies, that really is all they have isn't it.

  • 273. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Oh forgot to say, Thanx, Ronnie, the show last night left me on the edge of my chair!

  • 274. Ronnie  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:30 am

    See….I told you…wasn't that something….she didn't even know…..<3…Ronnie

  • 275. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Yeah, I was amazed, didn't even see it coming! LOL

  • 276. David Kimble  |  February 12, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Here is another link to a story I just wrote yesterday, there have been no comments posted yet, but I supsect there will be. Love, David

  • 277. JosephH  |  February 12, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Using Santorum's pretzel logic:
    the white SCOTUS judges should have recused themselves from the case involving the fire fighters that they used to try to sink Sotomayor's nomination;
    Black judges should recuse themselves whenever a civil rights case based on racial bias is before them;
    Women judges should recuse themselves whenever a civil rights case based on gender bias is before them;
    Straight judges should recuse themselves whenever a civil rights case based on sexual preference biases is before them;
    And only white men who own property would have any rights.

  • 278. CarpoolKathleen  |  February 15, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I don't often have the stomach for politics.

    This latest accusation that Judge Walker is biased due to his being gay is just sooo depressing. How do you even BEGIN to argue against moronic logic like their's?

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