Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Closing Arguments May Be Televised


By Julia Rosen

Judge Walker is proceeding forward to get the closing arguments televised. This is great news for accountability and transparency in the trial. And I’m sure welcome news for our Trial Trackers, for while you all loved all of the liveblogging, it’s just not the same as watching it live on TV.

Despite a rebuff from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bay Area’s federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Given the likelihood that Judge Walker will be active from the bench, peppering the lawyers with questions, the closing arguments are likely to be very interesting and not just a couple lawyers standing and talking for hours on end.

If his court approves the new rule next week, Walker could allow camera coverage of the arguments along the lines of his previous order, subject to approval by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Telecasting lawyers’ arguments, without witness testimony, might pass muster with the Supreme Court, which hasn’t objected to televised hearings of arguments before the Ninth Circuit.

No witnesses, no real argument against this one and Prop 8’s defenders aren’t saying yet if they will still try and fight it.

Prop. 8’s sponsors, who opposed telecasting the trial, won’t say whether they would challenge the airing of final arguments.

With no specific broadcast plan on the table, “we’re not going to speculate on how we would feel about that,” said Andrew Pugno, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the Prop. 8 campaign committee.

Oh Pugno, we know you have no reason to oppose it now, but you will invent something to try and keep this trial behind closed doors. The question is…will the courts rule in your favor this time?

Tags: ,


  • 1. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:54 am

    I, for one, hope that the court does stop Re-pug-NO from getting his way on this one. It is not the witnesses wo are scared to be seen, it is Re-Pug-NO wo is afraid to be sen unless he is the on who controls the cameras. YOu see, only if he controls the cameras can he keep his incompetence as a lawyer from being shown to the whole world.

  • 2. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Prop 8's attorneys may risk being disliked if they are allowed to be televised. Surely, that's enough!

  • 3. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:57 am

    e’re not going to speculate on how we would feel about that

    If that isn't a bunch of BS! I bet they have already speculated each outcome and have prepared statements to whichever outcome. At least a reputable lawyer would be ready for it…

  • 4. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:41 am

    and yet their lawyers credibility and reputations have been extremely compromised…1st for taking the case…..2nd for lack of legal knowledge relevant to this case…3rd for doing all the work for their witlessess…..who didn't do the reading….and 4th for not convincing their other witnesses to testify….they cooked their goose….hehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 5. ashleyfmiller  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:02 am

    I've been following, but I don't remember, when are the closing arguments? Has that been set yet?

  • 6. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:06 am

    That was supposed to be announced today, but since Judge Spero agreed with Prop H8's discovery request, the likelihood is that the decision will be delayed. This will result in several more documents for Walker to review.


  • 7. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:13 am

    What discovery request did they submit? and was it just recent?

  • 8. Cassie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Wait, Fiona, I'm confused. What was Prop H8's discovery request? What was the discovery? I'm realy excited that it migh be televised. There's no way I can watch it at home because I have school and my parents would shoot me if they saw me watching it, and unfortunately "Prop 8 Trial" wouldn't look so good on our Tivo. Does anyone know if it will be on youtube or anywhere else? I really want to see it. This is just the beginning of the marriage fight, it's the beginning of my life, as I'm about to go college. This trial will help in determining my life! It's a huge deal that I might have to miss because my parents are bigots and hate me cause I'm gay. Oh the joys of mormonism and being 17 and a lesbian.

  • 9. Alex D  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:20 am

    According to the article linked in the SF paper – it wouldn't be "televised" in the sense of showing on television. It would be broadcast closed-circuit to other federal courtrooms (I don't recall if just other 9th circuit courtrooms or nationwide). At some point in the future, there would be a posting to youtube.

    That reads to me like it might appear on TV after appearing on youtube in the sense that various news shows might show clips from it.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Cassie and jimig, see my response to Dave below.

  • 11. Straight Grandmother  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Cassie, go to college at least 4 states away.

  • 12. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:40 am


    Hang in there. Your life will not always be like this. Get as far away from them as soon as you can do so legally and safely.

    There is a whole-gay-wide-world out here waiting for you!!!

    You're in my thoughts.


  • 13. Bry  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Damn right Cassie – stay strong, get good grades, and get the hell out of there, I know you're probably in California because you're posting here and not in Utah.. but yeah.. if you can find a way to russle up $200 get a passport in secret as soon as you turn 18 and try to get accepted on a Maple card to a college in Canada.

  • 14. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Cassie since you are over 16 and under 18 you can also sue your parents and file a motion to be emancipated….there are many lawyers that would do it pro bono(free) if the case is as serious as you say it is…A kid I went to school with did it to his parents…when he came out….not only did he gain he freedom, he got money, and it entirely broke down all of his parents hatred of him….but he wound up disowning them got on the first bus to NYC and never looked back….AHH nothing like a good mix of justice, retaliation, and karma to make thing all good with the world….<3…Ronnie

  • 15. Bolt  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Hang tough, and get out! Go to college!

  • 16. M S  |  March 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

    @Cassie, hang in there, girl. It's been awhile since I was 17, but I still vividly remember all those impatient, chafing feelings of pre-college life: being ready to go and yet held back by my age, loved by my family but forever misunderstood, looking rather desperately for ways to be myself and grow without generating too much (more) estrangement.

    If you lived in the same county, my wife and I would be happy to have you over– with popcorn for watching the closing arguments, tea for the talk about college and religious expression, and CAKE for the life & marriage discussion!

  • 17. Dave in Canton, MI  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:18 am

    wait…what discovery…did I miss something?

  • 18. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Here's my understanding of the discovery issue being referenced (and I don't claim it's acurate or thorough; I've been hoping Brian would do a post on the topic).

    The D-Is have been trying to force the "No on 8" side to turn over documents from their campaign for quite some time now, claiming that it's only fair, given that the "Yes on 8" side had to do that.

    I'm not sure of the full scope of the documents they've been requesting, but I think they include items from Equality California and ACLU and maybe others.

    The orgs effected by the discovery request have been arguing that they shouldn't have to comply with the request because the documents aren't relevant. Their argument is basically that the "Yes" campaign's documents were relevant to Plaintiff's case because Plantiff was trying to prove the religious motives and animus in their campaign, whereas there's nothing in the "No" campaigns documents that could be relevant in the D-I's defense.

    Judge Spero has been handling these discovery issues. There was a hearing yesterday on the motions to compel, and according to a post from someone yesterday, Spero ruled for D-Is. I'm not sure if there is an avenue for appeal. Even if not, this still means there are new documents that have to be introduced into evidence and that may mean to Judge Walker might further delay even scheduling the date for the closing arguments.

  • 19. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Cassie, Hang in there. Don't let the hate eat at you, life is about love and celebration. Surround yourself with positive supports both LGBT and streight. Most higher eds have good support and as you already knowe your friends already love you. Your parents I hope still love you, you just are making them rethink yeras of brain trama, and most likely they are afraid to admit they are wrong. Or they could really be bigots and you may find yourself issolated and again don't let it eat you up. As they say friends are Gods way of making up for our families.

  • 20. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:01 am

    In addition to what JimiG says above:

    Cassie, I hope you will check to see whether your school as a Gay/Straight Alliance club or Gay & Lesbian Student Education Network (GLSEN) club. They can be a lot of support for you.

    You may also wish to gently ask your parents to check out a PFLAG meeting (Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays).


  • 21. Urbain  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:24 am

    We’re not going to speculate on how we would feel about that,” said Andrew Pugno, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the Prop. 8 campaign committee. [emphasis added]

    Considering that Pugno had a heyday on his ProtectMarriage blog over "feelings" expressed during the trial and how irrelevant "feelings" are when it comes to discrimination and the law, it's interesting that he is going by his "feelings" about a televised closing argument.

    These people are incredibly hypocritical.

  • 22. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Feelings….whoa whoa whoa feelings….

    [youtube =]

  • 23. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:12 am


  • 24. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    He even looks like Andy if Andy would talk a little care with his appearance! And isn't that Shaun White playing the drums?

  • 25. Urbain  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Sweet! LOL!

  • 26. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:34 am

    "Oh Pugno, we know you have no reason to oppose it now, but you will invent something to try and keep this trial behind closed doors."

    hehehe….Julia you owe me a keyboard now…..<3…Ronnie

  • 27. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Someone help me on this one…my English is usually impeccable…but I just don't have a good understanding of this phrase…'running roughshod'. What EXACTLY does it mean and how is it being used in this phrase…

    "This is an outrageous example of running roughshod over the rights of the people of Maryland in pursuit of a private political agenda," wrote Brian Brown, executive director of NOM."

    I understand that unshod or poorly shod horses would run 'roughshod' over a well manicured field thus tearing it up. What I am unclear on is how this relates to 'the rights of the people of Maryland'. It does not mean repeal clearly, and it does not mean interfere. Anyway, just curious.

    Of course it is pointless but entertaining to note that Brian Brownose does not clarify WHICH rights SPECIFICALLY are being 'run over roughshod'.


  • 28. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:50 am

    roughshod |ˈrəfˌ sh äd|
    adjective archaic
    (of a horse) having shoes with nailheads projecting to prevent slipping…….Doesn't really fit in the sentence are is a very sad attempt at a metaphor….

    but the dictionary of phrases on my comp…says this:

    "ride roughshod over carry out one's own plans or wishes with arrogant disregard for (others or their wishes) : he rode roughshod over everyone else's opinions."

    But isn't that what NOM and the religious conservative Reich doing to LGBTQQIA Americans?…..Everyone say it together…….HYPOCRITES!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

  • 29. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Ok, so from this I can deduce that 1) it is grammatically and linguistically correct and 2) it is, per the norm for NOM, completely meaningless emotiionalism with no real or actual legal merit….kinda like P-H8's defense!

  • 30. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:10 am


  • 31. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:51 am
    Verb 1. run roughshod – treat inconsiderately or harshly
    Verb: run roughshod

    1. Treat inconsiderately or harshly

  • 32. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Are all posts with links being moderated to verify content is "safe"?

  • 33. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Alan, I think if there is more than one link they are checking to make sure we aren't being spammed.


  • 34. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Rights cannot actually be 'treat[ed] inconsiderately or harshly'.

    So I reiterate…..

    His statement, though grammatically and linguistically correct, is still completely meaningless.

  • 35. Straight Grandmother  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:00 am

    LOL, a couple weeks ago I had a complete meltdown as I had a very thoughtful pretty long post written and it happened to have 2 links in it and it would not post. It drove me crazy as I could post other posts but not the one I wanted. Finally someone posted that you can't have 2 links in the same post or it gets moderated before posted. I could NOT figure out why it wouldn't post until someone mentioned about not putting 2 links in one post, geesh…

  • 36. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:02 am

    "Running roughshod" usually means trampling over something without regard to the damage inflicted — as in, damage caused by horseshoe nails on a roughshod horse.

    What they are trying to say here is that acknowledging same-sex marriages from other states is trampling on peoples' rights. How that may be the case is beyond me, but I think that's what they're getting at.


  • 37. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:39 am

    "What they are trying to say here is that acknowledging same-sex marriages from other states is trampling on peoples’ rights."

    Any specific rights? Or just like…I don't know….say….my right to bear arms?

    "How that may be the case is beyond me…"

    Not true Fiona, don't feign ignorance…..I am sure you recognize meaningless babble when you read it.

    ;`P Felyx

    (BTW, Thanks for the definitions but that was not the important part. What I was getting at was that I wanted to make sure that I was not misunderstanding the meaning-[lessness] of the statement.)

  • 38. Sheryl  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Why, their right to deny the LGBT community equal rights is being trampled on. As if they really have that right.

  • 39. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:45 am

    How much do you wanna bet that their closing arguments are going to include quotes from the bible….The amicus briefs included them therefor it can be safe to say the cl-argue could include them as well….JMHO….<3…Ronnie

  • 40. lostboyjim  |  February 27, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Not if they haven't referenced the versus before…I believe you cannot add anything to closing arguments that hasn't already been presented during trial.

  • 41. JP  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:48 am

    What happens if the judge rules for the plantiffs and the defendants DO NOT appeal? Is this where it ends and goes no further in the courts?

  • 42. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:52 am

    They will appeal. Pugno is running for state legislature.

  • 43. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Brian and CC team. Can we get some kind of update with information regarding the Motion to Compel and who is saying what with that? I think it's almost time to go from "Regular Blog" mode to "Liveblog" mode.

  • 44. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I second that request! I really, really want to know what's going on with the discovery issues.

    – Exactly what are D-Is asking for and from whom?
    – What are the arguments on both sides of the issue (simplified versions)?
    – What is Spero's ruling and what is his reasoning?
    – Can Spero's decision be appealed as a separate issue, or only in the context of an appeal of the case as a whole?
    – Links to the motions, briefs and transcripts of hearing if available.

  • 45. cc  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Me three!

  • 46. waxr  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Televising the closing arguments will make a difference in how they are presented. At this point, it is questionable how much the closing arguments can affect the judges decision. The evidence is in and the testimony has been heard. Amicus briefs have been filed. The attorneys will tailor the arguments to appeal to the television audience, rather than to the judge.

    The TV audience has not heard the testimony, therefore they are open to any argument presented.

    The plaintiffs are looking forward to the Ninth Circuit's Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court. But they are also hoping to persuade millions of people that equality in marriage is fair and right.

    The defense see the public as supporters. Voters have consistently gone against same sex marriage, and the defense may wish to rally them again, even if it means forgoing legal points in order to win political points. They will reiterate the danger to the children, and freedom of religion. There may be a bit of theatrics in the courtroom.

    The job of the plaintiff attorneys, will be to demolish the defense's arguments, before they are made.

  • 47. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:09 am

    In other words, we need to point out that there is no danger to children, and it actually increases freedom of religion. Since we've already done that, it should be easy to repeat.

  • 48. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:15 am


    In other words, we need to point out that there is no danger to religion, and it actually increases benefits to children. Since we’ve already done that, it should be easy to kick their sorry asses one more time.

    Just a slight edit…enjoy! ;P

  • 49. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Fair enough, though I'd then take it further to say it benefits both children and religion (except for their freedom to be homophobic bigots, anyway).

  • 50. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:09 am

    "Voters have consistently gone against same sex marriage,"……and that is were they continue to twist the words the voters have not been consistent….with every vote more and more come to our side….and they continue to ignore that amount of people who choose not to vote… what is really consistent is the number of people who keep saying STFU, grow up, and mind your own business well that and "It shouldn't even be an issue…they are humans, they are Americans, all those rights are their rights to…I don't have the right to vote on other people lives if they are doing nothing physical to effect me"…….the Hateros are living in a bubble that is about to burst….JMHO….<3…Ronnie

  • 51. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:23 am

    From my statistical analysis:

    Prop H8ers convinced a smaller portion of possible voters to vote Yes rather than No in Prop 8 than for Prop 22 (5.5% compared to 1.7%). Prop 8 convinced 51.6% more people to vote Yes in 2008, where No on 8 convinced 120% more people to vote No in 2008. No on 8 increased our tallies by 1 and a half times more people than Prop H8.!/notes/alan-eckert/some… for the full thing. Might have to add me as a friend.

  • 52. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Link to full message here. The Facebook links get broken oddly if you paste just the link.

  • 53. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Ronnie what does JMHO mean?

  • 54. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:43 am

    "Just My Humble Opinion"

  • 55. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:46 am

    also Just my honest opinion….<3…Ronnie

  • 56. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Voters have no right to be voting on the rights of other human beings to being with.

    Voters are acting illegally in doing so.

    Fundamental rights, which marriage has been repeatedly been declared to be by the courts, are not subject to be voted upon. That's what makes them 'fundamental.'

    Unless you are an LGTB citizen.

    When all is said and done and our rights ARE secure, I will most certainly sue this country for reparations for not only the suffering this country has caused me, but for all of the MONEY that it has cost me in additional taxes, additional legal costs, and every other thing I can come up with.

    This country owes us not only our rights, but it also owes us money. Money for the suffering it has caused as well as the money it has cost us all in setting up legal affairs as well as lost pensions and social security and such.

    America OWES us.

    Big time.

  • 57. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:22 am

    I like the idea of a live broadcast, but lets face it at this piont it would benifit the ha8ers. The public will not see the weak a** testomonies all they will see is what they want to see. The prop 8er's can conceed a trial loss and go for the press and public views. The Ha8ers will only record and listen to what they want. Personally I would rather not give them the 15 second bites to use out of context.

    Pugno is afraid he will make an idiot of himself, we know he will, but we all also know the national news is only looking for 15 seconds of common sense and I think he does have about 20 seconds worth.

    On the other hand the good guys will make this all public and in my mind it will change the way many people think.

  • 58. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:48 am

    "at this point it would benefit the ha8ers"

    I disagree. There's every reason to believe that Walker intends to actively question both sides during closing arguments. I also think there's a benefit in people haveing an opportunity to see what plaintiff's ACTUAL arguments are, as opposed to what the D-Is SAY they are.

    For those people who only want to hear what their own side has to say, there's probably little chance that they'd want to view it anyway, but for those people who could possibly be swayed by hearing the TRUTH, then there's a benefit. For example, some people really don't understand that there's a distinction between what the civil government does and what their church must do. There might be some of those people who would better understand this distinction and thus stop opposing ss (civil) marriage if they did.

  • 59. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Thank you I wasn't clear on what might be asked or how it might be asked, nice point. Is there a method or standard for questions that might be asked?

  • 60. PDXAndrew  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I'm not sure which side will benefit the most from televising the closing arguments.

    On the one hand, we'll be able to once again point out all the scientific data on our side and how there's not one iota of data on their side. I know the TRUTH will eventually set us free.

    But on the other hand, the hateros will have another opportunity to play the martyr, which they've had thousands of years to practice.

    We have two hopes:
    1) Judge Walker asks intelligent questions that allow us to show all the hate in it's ugly truth.
    2) the hateros haven't seen the musical Chicago; I mean it's a broadway musical, stereotypically the preview of the LGBTQQIA community instead. Hopefully, they don't know of the number Razzle Dazzle:

    Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
    Razzle Dazzle 'em
    Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
    And the reaction will be passionate
    Give 'em the old hocus pocus
    Bead and feather 'em
    How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
    What if your hinges all are rusting?
    What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
    Razzle dazzle 'em
    And they;ll never catch wise!

    Love, Andrew

  • 61. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Actually I prefer….."Pop….Six….Squish….Uh uh…Cicero….Lipschitz……They had it coming….They had it coming….They only had themselves to blame….."

    You know how people have these little habits that get you down…Like Andy….Andy like to spread lies….POP….Well, i came to court this one day…And I am really irritated, and looking for a little equality….and theres Andy lyin' in the court, speculating, and spouting scripture….no not spouting propagating…..So, I said to him….I said "Andy, you propagate scripture one more time…." and he did….so I took the bible off the desk and slammed two warning shots….against his head.

    They had it coming…..they had it coming…they only had themselves to blame…….heheheh….<3…Ronnie

  • 62. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:16 am

    I am so going to rewrite that entire scene from Chicago to make fun of the Hateros….bwwaaaaa…..<3….Ronnie

  • 63. Straight Grandmother  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:18 am

    @PDXAndrew, you said, "On the one hand, we’ll be able to once again point out all the scientific data on our side and how there’s not one iota of data on their side. I know the TRUTH will eventually set us free."

    What? Have you forgotten about the infamous NARTH. They have NARTH. Member when that chinese guy said, "I believe in NARTH" So yeah, I guess they feel like they have NARTH so they'll probably win. I mean they have NARTH, we only have PhD's from Harvard University who has researched marriage for 10 years. ROTHLMFAO

  • 64. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

    ROFLMAO, Ronnie.

    True story: My girlfriends and I do "Cellblock Tango" every once in a while.

    I'm always Pop.

    "And then I fired two warning shots.

    In … to … his … head."


  • 65. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Lol….fiona64…..I 'm always Lipschitz…1. because I like saying Lipschitz…2. he cheated on her with Irving…enough said….and 3. Artistic differences…"He saw himself as alive and I saw him dead"………hehehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 66. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Who cares about the haters? They will NEVER change their minds. And who cares, they're losers. Let them hate. THEY have to walk around with that hate in their hearts, not us.

    As I said in a previous post, we need to stop playing with them altogether. let them pass every single referendum against us that they want – WE'LL SUE THEM. We should not even be RESPONDING to this crap any longer. It wastes our money and energy.

    We spent $40 million on Prop 8 alone. And for what???

    We must DISENGAGE with these haters altogether and ALWAYS and ONLY turn to the courts for protection. It is our only hope. And why waste $40 million on a referendum we simply can not win????

    People hate us. So f'ing what. There are still laws that have to be followed in this country. Even when the majority of its citizens hate the people involved, there are still laws.

    Eventually, the courts will protect us. Because this is only going to get worse and worse for us as the religious freaks get bolder and bolder in their abuse of our community.

    But playing their game along with them is a waste of time for us. I am certain of that.

  • 67. Urbain  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:58 am

    There's a lot of truth to what you're saying, Bill.

  • 68. David Kimble  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:36 am

    I agree with you, Bill, to a point. I have no idea how you are, yet I am old enough to remember, when we still had to fight for our rights. I have seen little change in the politics of the PARTY OF NO, since the time of Stonewall and Harvey Milk's passing. If we are to rely on the courts, as our only means of restitution, I hold my breath, since the courts can always interpret laws in different manners, than we (the laymen). So I don't believe this fight is over, not by any means you wish to guage the battle. <3 David

  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:47 am

    David K….is back……YEAAAAAAAAA!!!!….hehehe….We've missed you…..<3…Ronnie

  • 70. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Hey David K…

    Welcome back!

    I am 40. I have been ACTIVELY fighting for our rights for 20 years.

    I am tired.

  • 71. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Welcome back, David K! You have really been missed!

  • 72. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Also, David, was not implying ANYTHING was OVER.

    If you've read any of my posts all along the way here, and I've been here since day 1, I have ALWAYS held that this is truly only the very beginning of our fight.

    My point, which I guess I stated badly, is that we keep doing this stupid referendum stuff. After 31 losses. Yet we'll do it agin and again and spend millions more. To lose again.

    Our community MUST unite in the belief that ANY and ALL referendums and the electorate simply voting on our rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    So, next time the haters pull a referendum out of their ass, LET'S IGNORE IT. Let's not even ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Let them vote, vote, vote and vote and vote our rights away. Again and again and again and again. They are doing it ANYWAY and they are costing us a FORTUNE. How many friggin' court cases could we start with that $40 million we spent in California on Prop 8??? A LOT.

    That makes a heck of a lot of more sense than repeating these humiliating referendums. We need to ignore them. No counter-ads. Noslick PR firms, no fancy fliers… NOT A CENT OF OUR MOENY SPENT ON REFERENDUMS.

    And every time they pass, and they will, we take them to court. That's the American way. When you are being abused via the government, you seek protection from the courts. When you are being abused BY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, you seek protection form the court.

    But continually losing these referendums costs us too much financially & spiritually, and they make us look like victims and dum-dums.

    Let's spend all that money we donate to the HRC and GLAAD and the DNC on court cases to fight the abuse we are suffereing at the hands of our fellow citizens.


    Unless we want to wait another 25 to 50 years.

    And I don't.

  • 73. David Kimble  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I have got a few years on you., Bill, I have been fighting for our rights for nearly 30 years now. With each battle, we make some progress and with this battle, if we win, we will gain one of the ultimate prizes! Thanx, all for recognizing, I have returned. I have been in and out of the hospital this past week, but I think I am back for good, now! <3 David

  • 74. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I friend of mine recently referred to Prop 8 as "Government by the People, Against the People"

  • 75. David Kimble  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:12 am

    "Let’s spend all that money we donate to the HRC and GLAAD and the DNC on court cases to fight the abuse we are suffereing at the hands of our fellow citizens." Agreed, but we still need to support the three causes you mention. HRC has been at forefront of the battle to claim our rights, GLAAD does work of a different nature. I agree with you, regarding DNC, since all they have offered has been lip-service and hot wind to our community. <3 David

  • 76. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    @ Kathleen

    I don't think I've EVER heard it stated better than that.

  • 77. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    David, watch your email.

  • 78. G.Rod  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Bill, I have read this and your earlier and later comments. You are on a roll!
    The argument you assert might be true in a country that doesn't have referendums or elect judges. Or appointments for life. Is not the federal senior Supreme 89?
    There is much to be learned about the limitations of Courts from the California Supreme Court companion decisions on SSM. In their original decision, a weak majority of judges were clear that the rights being constitutionally acknowledged were implicitly always there and were unalienable. Amazing, in their later decision, read how these same people wiggle away from their earlier judgment. Faced with the will of the people, the rights of the majority, expressed through a ‘peple’s’ referendum, trumps the rights of minorities. Reason: the court’s legitimacy is derived from the people.

    The Wise Ones oddly acknowledged the validity of 18,000 SSM before the people collectively overruled them, thereby setting up a situation where similarly situated people – same sex couples – would be treated differently. Courts have long held such incongruity to be discrimination, for which there must be redress.

    David K – your scepticism is well place.

  • 79. The Reverend Susan R  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:46 am

    So if anyone's looking for a little "fight fire with fire" Bible verse to use on the "But the Bible Says Bunch," one of the commenters on my blog just suggested this one:

    John 3:19-21 – And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’

    Unless of course they have something to hide. Hmmm …

  • 80. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:55 am

    That is so true, Reverend Russell. And it is very telling that we ar the ones who are not afraid to be out there, while the prop H8ers are trying to keep this out of the limelight.

  • 81. bJason  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:08 am

    If I may be so bold (and if no one wants to answer in this forum, I understand)…where are you guys finding each other on FB? I want to befriend you guys. My other FB friends seem apathetic, at best, to this cause.


  • 82. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:11 am

    though the P8TT FB group…..<3…Ronnie

  • 83. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:20 am

    My FB profile is the link in my name. The P8TT Faceplace page is at!/group.php?gid=43024709

  • 84. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:21 am!/group.php?gid=43024709… should be the full link.

  • 85. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Easy enough to just copy/paste it, anyway.

  • 86. Alan E.  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:26 am

    I think the ! in the link is throwing it off.

  • 87. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Probably. But this should work, right?

  • 88. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Just wanted to say again – I would be glad to hear from anyone on FB – just send a friend request, with a note as to what name you use here (if it's diff than your FB name). I'm Kathleen Perrin on the P8TT facebook page.

  • 89. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Hey I just read the SF Cronicles article.

    Read more:

    They never get it right, they mention that 4 of the 6 defendant experts dropped out after it was going to be telivised.

    What was the link that showed just how bad the deposition where. Some one cleaver than I am should send them the info as well as the back ground of the people who were proven in other cases not to be expert witnesses.

  • 90. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Kathleen…I think I friend requested you on FB…..<3…Ronnie

  • 91. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Ronnie, you did and I just replied. Great to see you there!

  • 92. fiona64  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:06 am

    bJason, speak up once you get over there so I can find you. My FB is set up so that only friends-of-friends can see my information, and I don't want to miss you. 🙂


  • 93. nightshayde  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I was going to send you a friend request a couple of weeks ago, but I couldn't find the appropriate button. =( I thought maybe you had disabled requests so you wouldn't get flooded with requests from here.

    Of course, if that's what you did & why you did it, it's working perfectly! :o)~

  • 94. fiona64  |  February 27, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Nightshayde, I'll send you a request. My FB is actually set up so that only "friends of friends" can see my info because of the whole cyberstalking thing.


  • 95. bJason  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Thanks everyone! I have you now 🙂 te he he! Thanks to my first new FB friend, Alan!

  • 96. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:40 am

    And if you send me a friend request I will confirm. After all, that way everybody from here will be able to celebrate our wedding with us,even if you cannot be there in person.

  • 97. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:21 am


  • 98. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 6:48 am

    So I have been trying to keep up. Just wanted to make sure I was clear. Nothing happened today, the Judge is waiting for ruling on if it can be telivised. Other than that the ha8ers but in a request and those agencies supporting SSM are dragging their feet. Please tell me thats not true.

    We should encourage SSM organizations to be open, in the long run the more open we are with records the more we can demand they be if the need be. And they (especially the churches have a lot more to hide). I know, I know it's legal and I clearly don't get all of it.

  • 99. Anne  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:12 am

    I hope you still blog it even if it's televised. I can read the blog while working, can't watch the TV!

  • 100. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:15 am

    And the comment discussions here are nice as well. It'll go better if we have something concrete to look at rather than discussing a video from elsewhere, I think.

  • 101. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Regarding Comment # 1, it might be worth pointing out that it is counterproductive to call Andrew Pugno "incompetent". Certainly he is outclassed by Olsen and Boies, but they are two of the best attorneys in the U.S. and calling Pugno incompetent implies that there is a significantly stronger argument in favor of Proposition Eight than what Pugno presented.

    In the U.S., each side of a legal dispute is entitled to representation by an attorney. Sometimes an attorney gets a really bad case where there is no decent defense. If there is no good defense, that is not the attorney's fault.

    It's not like Pugno is responsible for William Tam, the poster child for animus, being one of the five people who filed Proposition Eight.. Tam's only out would have been to say that he lied through his teeth because he was focused totally on winning (a real risk given who was going to question Tam – Boies could probably get the Pope to admit to being an ax murderer), but that would make a wonderful campaign ad in favor of repealing it, and that's the last thing Pugno's client would want on TV. No wonder he tried to block televising the trial.

  • 102. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:29 am

    FYI, not the usual 'Bill' who posts here…


    The 'Other' Bill

  • 103. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Off topic, but too delightful NOT to share:

  • 104. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:31 am

    So if I'm all three of those, I'm a genius? Of course. It all makes sense now.

  • 105. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:37 am

    A genius, and officially asked on a date! ; )

  • 106. Ben  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Actually, that fits me, too. Everything is so much clearer now! Finally, an explanation for intuitive jumps in logic that baffle everyone! We are smart because we're gay liberal atheists.

  • 107. Michelle Evans  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:22 am

    My favorite quote from the article:

    "Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid. … It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere."


  • 108. Bill (2)  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Regarding "My favorite quote from the article: “Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid. … It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere.”

    The article is most likely wrong. Religions (most of them) more likely arises from two factors. One is the human tendency to anthropomorphiize – to see faces in natural objects (trees, "the man in the moon", etc.) due to pattern recognition and visual processing. The second is the ability to reason by analogy. Once they grasp the idea that they have an alpha male to deal with, by analogy that alpha male should have its alpha male, but its alpha male can't be seen. So, the model gets fixed by making the alpha male's alpha male a god – there but invisible.

    The neurological structures that make religion possible may be those that allow us to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the world than other animals can, and that ability gives us a real advantage in terms of survival. Religion is just a side effect of that.

    So, some people see a random cloud formation that looks a bit like a person during a thunderstorm (where the light is a bit dim to add to the effect) and then a lightning bolt. By analogy with people throwing spears, we get Zeus throwing lightning bolts. Then stories about it get embellished, and there you have it – the start of a religious tradition. Then when the "powers that be" want to impose some rule, they attribute it to the wishes of their newly discovered deity – it's easier to argue with a person standing in front of you than some invisible entity that might get pissed off and send a lightning bolt in your general direction.

  • 109. waxr  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Daily Bible Passage

    Leviticus 3:16 3:16 Then the priest must offer them up in smoke on the altar as a food gift for a soothing aroma – all the fat belongs to the LORD.

    Note: According to the Bible, God loves the smell of burning fat, and he wants all of it.

  • 110. John  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Then he says sacrifices are bad later on. Further proof that God has dissociative identity disorder. Which is also the only way the Trinity makes sense, really.

  • 111. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:46 am

    but thats the best part…..<3….Ronnie

  • 112. Bill  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Note: According to the Bible, God loves the smell of burning fat, and he wants all of it.


    Run, Maggie, run!!!

  • 113. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    I don't think she can. I don't think she can move that fast.

  • 114. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    I am crying I am laughing so hard!!!!

  • 115. jimig  |  February 26, 2010 at 7:50 am

    waxr, I would like to ask you nicely to please stop with the daily bible passage. It side tracks those of us who really want to follow this and learn and share about supporting for prop 8.

    I have read the bible all the way through a 1/2 dozen times, there is no need for any scripure in this situation. If we want bible leasons we will go somewhere else.

    Please I am asking you nicely to stop distracting people you are causing more harm than good, pay attention to how many people you are making mad and upseting. As my best friend would say as he say to messure all things "wheres the love in that"

  • 116. Straight Grandmother  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

    jimig, I personally have a hard time saying to someone what they can and cannot post. Once in a while I read the Bible passages he posts, just a real quick read. To me, only my humbe opinion, I don't wnat to hurt other people's feelings by telling them what they should or should not say. If they are posting what I'm not interested in I jsut don't read it and or reply.

    I know you said it in a very nice way, but maybe you would have been better off just skipping over his posts. Probably people don't like reading about my grandchildren either but they are nice enough to not say anything to me. It is a big tent here.

  • 117. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Straight Grandmother, I for one love hearing about your granchildren and how they are being raised in a family of love and acceptance. I have found that the greater the amount of self-acceptance a person has, the greater amount of acceptance he or she has for others. I have also found in my own experience, that thse who have very low self-acceptance make up for that lack by criticizing and physically attacking other people that they see living happily, so that they can then make these people feel weak and powerless. And I truly hope I get to meet everybody here face to face. That is how much all of you mean to me. You are my family.

  • 118. waxr  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:31 am


    I admit to having gone too far with the "Daily Bible Passages". I will post them less frequently from now on, although you are only the second person to complain.

    I have tried to keep the passages a tiny bit relevant. When somebody quotes Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13, I quote the entire passage in which the quote appeares. It shows how much crap there is in the Bible. Most of the people who read my posts already know about the crap because they have had the Bible quoted at them all their lives.

    When Christian start citing the Bible to support "traditional" marriage, I like to quote what Paul wrote. Paul had a low opinion of both marriage and women.

    On the other hand, I have pulled out several beautiful passages from Song of Songs. Christians often deny that Song of Songs is about erotic love. They say it's a metaphor about Christ's love for the Church.

    You say you "have read the bible all the way through a 1/2 dozen times"? It takes real dedication to do that. I can't think of a greater waste of time, or anything more boring. I have studied the Bible for fifty years, and have yet to read it through, and probably never will.

  • 119. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Weighting a bit late in the day I just wanted to say…

    waxr…I for one think bible worship is a shipload of crap! Bible verse annoys the hell out of me (maybe literally.)

    That being said, there is the freedom of speech thing and I would also note that some of it is very relevant or at least timely. That last verse with the accompanying comments just made my night!!! I am still choking it is all so funny!

    On a more serious note, there are many Christians here who appreciate what you are doing. On behalf of them consider continuing to post. If anything point out more if why it is so relevant and by all means continue to educate. There are those who need the biblical tools to combat biblical stupidity.

    My hundred and two cents worth.

    (Who still interally agrees with jimig.)

  • 120. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    A message to Brian Brown executive director for NOM and his meaningless "roughshod" defense…..<3…Ronnie:

  • 121. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Way to go, Ronnie!

  • 122. dieter  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:24 am

    The American Psychological Association's has voted to support a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego and move its August meeting after fielding concerns from several members expected to attend, according to a press release sent out Friday.

    The bulk of the convention's meetings will be moved and members who opt not to stay at the Hyatt will be provided with alternative accommodations, in light of the voted by the APA Council of Representatives.

    Manchester Hyatt owner Doug Manchester (pictured) donated $125,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, which worked to ban same-sex marriage in California.

    "Today’s decision allows Council to make an important statement that it stands in solidarity with the LGBT community and its allies in protest of Mr. Manchester’s political views," APA president Carol Goodheart said.

    The APA also plans to use the meeting to highlight the association's policy in support of same-sex marriage and the science backing its position.

    The boycott of the Hyatt was spearheaded by several organizations, including Californians Against Hate and the Courage Campaign.

  • 123. David Kimble  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:32 am

    @DIETER – thanx for sharing the news story with us and thank you, Ronnie for the video. <3 David

  • 124. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

    You're welcome David K….and I'm glad you are feeling better….<3…Ronnie

  • 125. dieter  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:18 am

    WTF is that video about or for?

  • 126. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Oh dieter…..Brian Brown from NOM used that word I quoted to insult the A.G. from Maryland…the video is from the movie/musical "CAMP"….and hints to the single meaning of that word…a nail in a horses foot…lol….the defintion of his full use of the word is up above in a convo with Felyx….<3….Ronnie

  • 127. Felyx  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    So Ronnie,

    I guess the film is saying that because the Reich keeps 'nailing the Big JC to the cross' with their sins of hatred and bigotry that they they are sorely missing invaluable nails that are now losing them the kingdom of Gawd! …awful stupidity?

    Strangly relevent….in a NOM-esque way!!!


    I guess the most important thing to notice….is all the fierce gay twinks!

  • 128. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    You could say that is a part of it…Felyx….the main message is that because of one little nail a ripple effect happens….if you have that one nail to attach the shoe to the horse, the rider can deliver the message about the battle and the army can win the war for the kingdom….in other words its all in the details….like the evolution theory is missing one small connection where as the bible and all scripture is missing a lot of details that is why so many people question it because they and I notice the missing links….I always say neither the chicken or the egg can first…it was the idea….but anyway enough philosophy for tonight …So true about all the Fierce twinks and jerkin divas….all that and a Fabulous Queen that gets lifted into the air by two hunky men like the goddess she is….hehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 129. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    also meaning….they need us and they know it…they just don't want to admit it….I mean what is it they keep saying?…."We love you….we want you to be happy"……Excuse me wile i sneeze….ah chubull shite….so anywho..yeah….we are the nail that they are missing…glitter and all…lol…I don't know that song can mean what ever….it could be about paul revere…..but still That Nom guy tried to use that meaningless little "roughshod" defense and made me instantly go to this video….I'm glad you saw the relevance of it though…..<3…Ronnie

  • 130. Ronnie  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    I will deeply listen to the song 2morro and ignore all the Fierceness, divialiciousness, and fabulousness….because it is 3am here in NJ and i'm tired….and elaborate and give my full clairvoyant, philosophical, homo-genius, interpretation of the song…lol…<3…Ronnie

  • 131. Ronnie  |  February 27, 2010 at 2:29 am

    So about the song "For the Want of a Nail" from CAMP…everything i already said I still stand by including Felyx's interpretation….one line goes "Til the morning you can take it anymore and you don't get up….you put the curse of loneliness on every boy and every girl"….enough said…..also without Love the world had nothing…telling people they should be put to death and telling them how to live is not love…..telling your son or daughter he/she is going to hell is not love….It's fear, anger, and HATE…..their Jesus died for their sins….Hate is a sin…and he took those nails for them and what do they continue to do?…..symbolically spit on his grave…. because of their hatred(the nail)….the world was lost….I love it…I love Hype….<3…Ronnie

  • 132. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 10:59 am

    I suddenly remembered this and wanted to share.

    On day when all the campaigning to do with Prop 8 was going on, I was in my car driving near UCLA. There was a small group of people on the street corner with "NO on 8" signs and people driving by were having different reactions – some supportive, others obviously not. I literally started crying; it was just so WRONG that people had to stand on street corners and beg their fellow citizens to not vote away their civil rights, because that's it felt like to me. It still feels wrong and I get emotional every time I think about it.

  • 133. Linda  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Kathleen-here in Fresno it was just the opposite. We were bombarded with Yes on 8 signs; people screaming and yelling at us at every intersection. Grandparents, children, as well as younger adults all holding up signs and yelling at passers-by. It was scary to me. Their hatred was so transparent. And this went on for weeks before the election.

  • 134. jimig  |  February 27, 2010 at 12:55 am

    The effect was the same in Merced Ca where a couple of people had there kids hang out the windows yell profanities (ya kids) I couldn't believe it.

  • 135. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Kathleen, the reason it feels wrong for basic hman rights to be voted on is because it IS wrong. That is why so many of us feel so strongly bout fighting tocorrect thisatrocity that has been visited upon us. The fact that this was put to a vote is a shanda, and the fact that you still get emotional thinking about it proves that you are human. This proves that you are a beautiful woman. Revel in who you are. Revel in your friendships, your family, the love of your life. In fact, revel in your life itself. And thank you for being part of this trial tracker site. You have been one of the many here who have helped me grow in strength and conviction. You are one of the many who have helpd me to find something that I ca do where I finally feel, at age 47 (with only 10 days left, I feel I can name it and claim it), I am doing something that will have an impact on society. I finally feel that I am involved with something where I can leave a legacy behind that those who remember me will be proud to recall. Thank you so much for that.

  • 136. truthspew  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I hope they do televise (Or net broadcast as the case may be!)

    It will be my delight to see Pugno (Is it Poo-Neeo or P-Uh-G-No?) flapping in the wind as he tries to defend the position of bigotry.

  • 137. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 11:19 am

    I'm hoping the original recordings of the trial go public some day. I really, really want to see Boies's cross of David Blankenhorn.

  • 138. Jack  |  February 27, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Wouldn't it be possible, that if after the P8T is completely settled, all the rulings final, we could file a freedom of information request for the trail tape record? Since we know it exist?
    Or? Would it require that in closing Boies request that existing recordings be entered as part of the record? So that they have to be released if a freedom of information request is filed?

  • 139. Alan E.  |  February 27, 2010 at 1:32 am


  • 140. Bob  |  February 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    To David and Bill, thanks for your long term activism, those of us who remember when we took the fight to the streets, and the rights we've won, we had to fight for those we demanded them..
    I too am old and not well, but I'm well enough to march again, and fight for total equality, I agree watching all these court battles and being so polite, is degrading, and expensive. We;ve done a great job, if this doesn't produce equality, we need to FIGHT, march in the streets, create a noise.
    The U.S. seems to be in a particlarily fragile state right now, with all the enternal issues going on at once.
    How can the most powerfull nation in the world, not afford it's citizens equal rights, how can the most powerfull nation not afford health care for it's most vunerable, Why is it that this powerfull nation leads the world into battles to win these freedoms for others, with a military that discriminates against citizens who fight and die for their country.
    How is it that other countries do not take a stand about these inequalities i.e. demanding a safe and equatable battlefield before entering into war mongering partnerships.
    Prepare to FIGHT the truth is on our side, Prepare to march LOVE is on our side. Let's not sit buy and discuss how we would like to see our verdict handed to us.
    Don't take a break, use these connections to PREPARE for the next step in a battle almost won. We're tired, not DEAD.

  • 141. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 26, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Amen, Bob. I was all of six years old when the Stonewall riots took place. I hve not seen the worst of the homophobia and the gay bashing myself, even though I do know of people who have been bashed, sometimes fatally. I agree, we need to stand up and be counted. We need to do the same thing now that the AA's di in the 60's, and fight for what is right. And being in a military town, you would think that I could find more people who are willing to do just that.

  • 142. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Staying on topic (television and all…), Boies and Cooper were on Bill Moyers' Journal tonight. You can watch it online at:….

  • 143. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    That was supposed to say OLSON and Boies…. sorry.

  • 144. Kalibra  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    regarding facebook….to anyone interested…please add a friend 🙂

  • 145. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 27, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Is your FB ID the same as your P8TT ID?

  • 146. Kalibra  |  February 27, 2010 at 3:06 am

    its [email protected], that should let u find me 🙂

  • 147. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    I discovered this post online. I haven't been able to authenticate the source, but seems it could be true. Says Walker would have to specifically request broadcast of closing arguments, and no such request has been made:

  • 148. Straight Grandmother  |  February 26, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Kathleen, Many thanks for the link to the interview of Olson and Boies. That was really really a good interview and I think it is the first time they ahe sat down for an interview of this length being questioned by such and informed and fair interviewer.

    I encourage everyone to go to the link Kathleen has provided and watch this interview. Sometimes I get nervous about what I will feel if we loose. I worry about the appeals process and the competing constituitional rights that are decided in the side hearings that we don't see reported at all on this website. Watching this interview has given me sustance, sustance to continue to HOPE.

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