Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Trial Reenactment Day 3: Parts III and IV


By Julia Rosen

I hope you are all having a lovely weekend.

Here are the next two installments of the trial reenactment from


  • 1. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Thay keep this pace up, I may be able to download the whole trial re-enactment to my laptop by my birthday!

  • 2. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Happy Birthday! (In advance.) <3 Fe

  • 3. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Thanks, Felyx. The big 47. But I already have my "Old Farts" card, since BZ is AARP age. March 8.

  • 4. Sheryl  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Big 47?? you are a young one. Happy early Birthday!! Hope you are doing something special.

  • 5. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    When's your b-day…. mine is in 3 months and 27 days,,,,wooo hoooo….6-27…thats a holiday you know?…No really it is ……..every 7 years it falls on NYC Gay Pride…I'm gonna goooooo NUTS!!!!……26yo….I can't wait….Gay Pride and free drinks every where I go…sweet….hehehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 6. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Mine's the day after Talk Like a Pirate Day. I think that's the closest to a holiday I get.

  • 7. Sheryl  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:24 am

    There's an official Talk like a pirate day???

  • 8. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Yes, wait until you get to 56, which I am! HB to you in advance, too! <3 David

  • 9. Roy  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    the nefarious American Family Association is running a poll on their vile site…have everyone you know cast their vote…so they know we ARE watching THEM.. as they spread their lies and bigotry and hate. Help counter the 'no' vote tally there.

    note too, on some of their links, the absolute garbage they insist on spreading.

  • 10. Sheryl  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Did my yes vote and now I've going to take advantage of the phone numbers provided and let those people know that I think DADT should be repealed.

  • 11. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Post it here….see who else would like to have a few words!

  • 12. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Interesting to note, I just voted in their poll and my vote was not even registered. Looks like they don't want to register all votes. <3 David

  • 13. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Opinion polls are meaningless, anyway. The people who can actually do something about DADT aren't going to care about that.

  • 14. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Yeah, my vote also didn't show up 🙁

  • 15. Felyx  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I believe the poll is not meant to be accurate, it is a baiting tactic. Clearly the request for personal information is to weed out your vote and use the information to screen or harass you!!! Those who vote yes will get letters appealing to them for support.

  • 16. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:21 am

    "We may notify you via e-mail of updates on matters of importance. If, at that time, you do not wish to receive such mailings, follow the directions in the footer of the message to be removed."

  • 17. fiona64  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:06 am

    My vote did not register either.


  • 18. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:08 am

    I haven't gotten any hate spam yet, though (I have a second email account that I use specifically for things like this). Maybe it's just a show poll, or maybe they don't update the numbers immediately.

  • 19. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I voted yes under the name "Nunya Besnezz" and they counted it…..bwaaaaaa…..they're a bunch of FOOLS!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 20. Linda  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I think Felyx is right. This poll is more to garner email info of people who are prospective donors. If they bothered to vote, they may care enough to donate. Obviously this sort of poll has no validity on its own. It will just be something they can bring up when they're trying to enrage their potential supporters; but it would have no legal merit. One would assume that most of the people accessing that website would vote their way, after all; just like most (goodness, hopefully all!) people on this site would vote our way.

  • 21. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:19 am

    I hope that at least some of the people here would not vote our way initially. Helping them see the facts does much more good than preaching to the choir.

  • 22. cc  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I would, but there is no way I'm giving them my email address. Just scanning their website creeped me out.

  • 23. Sheryl  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Create an e-mail address to use just for them and other junk mail.

  • 24. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Tempting, but the margin of error is so high why would I want to skew the numbers up to something realistic?

    Let the smelly foul cow pattie statistics show themselves for who they are!

  • 25. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Just like DADT….If you don't tell then you are lying and your vote doesn't count….if you do tell they harrass you and throw you out! It is a fake poll, no real statistical data, no random sampling, Margin of error is wider than a drag queen who forgot to tuck!!! Felyx

  • 26. Devon  |  February 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    I thought everyone would really love this:

    [youtube =]

  • 27. Linda  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Ha! Thanks, Devon. 🙂

  • 28. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Thanx, Devon! <3 David

  • 29. Felyx  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Should open homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military?

    Yes 4,398 6%
    No 68,458 94%

    Plus or minus an error of my jock strap!

  • 30. Ronnie  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    All polls are fake…like I said the only way to know what every American wants it to force everyone of age including 16 & 17 to vote while attached to a lie detector….they we will know who got the majority vote….<3…Ronnie

  • 31. dieter  |  February 28, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    This Week In Holy Crimes

    Over the last seven days…

    Texas: Pastor Hezekiah Stallwork charged with molesting a seven year-old girl. Other victims are expected to come forward.
    Mississippi: Youth pastor Stephen Brown charged with multiples counts of possessing child pornography.
    Louisiana: Pastor Joseph Jones charged with multiple felony counts of dumping untreated human sewage from the six subdivisions he manages.
    New York: Rabbi Milton Balkany charged with attempting to extort $4M from a hedge fund by claiming he had knowledge of insider trading.
    California: Pastor John Albert Kleinpeter pleads guilty to using a hidden camera to take photos up women's skirts at a shopping mall. Heh, "Kleinpeter."
    Florida: Pastor Gaston Smith convicted of stealing funds from a charity he set up to aide impoverished seniors.
    New Brunswick: Pastor Frederick Hanson convicted of sexually assaulting an 11 year-old girl.
    Kentucky: Pastor Marion Barnes charged with five felony counts of child molestation.
    South Carolina: Pastor Arley Atchley charged with molesting two boys.
    New York: Father Ralph Johnson arrested on 15 felony counts of molesting boys.
    North Carolina: Pastor Ronnie Lee Jones confesses to felony embezzlement charges after being caught stealing from his church's treasury.
    Ireland: Father Ronald Bennett pleads guilty to multiple counts of child molestation.
    Sydney: Father Robert Fuller convicted to masturbating over webcam to a police officer he believed to be a 13 year-old girl.

    This Week's Winner-
    Uganda: Pastor Martin Ssempa screened hardcore gay porn during church services to 300 parishioners this week in an attempt to increase support for his "kill gays" bill. But this move backfired as fellow pastors across Uganda condemned Ssempa for disrespecting a house of worship. Some are calling for his arrest for violating anti-pornography laws.

  • 32. Sheryl Carver  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:09 am

    The anti-gay-everything Tony Perkins was uninvited to Andrews Air Force Base because of his stance on DADT. Here's the link:;…

    Loved how he spins it:
    Perkins called the incident an example of religious freedoms being trumped by political correctness.
    “This is not about the chaplain,” Perkins told CNS, “it's not even about Andrews Air Force Base, it's about the chilling effect that this policy would have upon Christians who operate from an understanding of what's right and right according to Scripture.”

  • 33. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Hmm…guess he skipped the lecture about separation of Church and State. <3 David

  • 34. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Thanx, I have included a quote from the article, Sheryl. The quote I have included is from Perkins himself! <3 David

    “At a time of enormous economic challenge, two on-going wars in which Americans are fighting and increased terrorist threats to Americans at home, President Obama seems untethered from that reality as he called on Congress to force the military to allow open homosexuality,” Perkins said in a statement published on his group's website January 27. “As a veteran of the Marine Corps, the timing of the President's call in the midst of two wars shows that he is willing to jeopardize our nation's security to advance the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby.”

  • 35. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:43 am

    "the timing of the President's call in the midst of two wars shows that he is willing to jeopardize our nation's security"

    but decreasing the number of people serving at the armed forces disposal because they are LGBTQQI is not jeopardizing our nation's security?…..and…. um……yeah……it is the hateros who are letting it stop them from doing their jobs effectively….not the gay people….<3…Ronnie

  • 36. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Same argument as with marraige. "It's their fault that I'm throwing a tantrum because I have to share!"

  • 37. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Gay soldiers are willing to serve a country that discriminates against them for who they are. Hatero soldiers are threatening to quit because they're worried some gay guy might see their junk. Which of those groups would you trust more to defend you?

  • 38. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:52 am

    It seems to me, they are constantly barraging us, with "at a time, when…" I am not amused with their rhetoric, but it is their rhetoric, which by my standards appears to be outdated and vapid. Many remain aligned with the party of NO! Is is any wonder they now find themselves in a minority in Congress?

  • 39. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I trust the Gay soldiers…. not only because of that…but also they have something to prove(all LGBTQQI)…..when soldiers of color were allowed to fight..they fought harder then anybody….when women were allowed into the army….they fought harder then and other man…..this is no different…..<3…Ronnie

  • 40. Bob  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:06 am

    British prime minisiter gordon brown speaks out about DADT

    "Indeed the transition of Great Britains military to open service was a virtual non event, as has been the case in 25 countries that allow lesbians and gays to serve openly, without problems of disruption to unit cohesion"

  • 41. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Guess he also skipped the part about how the military already (legally) restricts things like free speech and really frowns on having people speak who will be criticizing the President.

  • 42. Linda  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Oh, how could we forget? This is a 'Christian' nation!!!

  • 43. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Recently, I finished reading at a website about "The Christian nation's founding, I encourage you to read it – most of our founding father's were "Deists", which is a huge leap from how the "Christian" world views the founding of America. I am not amused, when people try to distort the facts and morph us or America into something we are not. <3 David


  • 44. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:31 am

    oops, that didn't come out right:

  • 45. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:20 am

    OUTRAGEOUS: Fort Worth Police Press Charges Against Rainbow Lounge Patrons

    After the Fort Worth police and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission staged a widely criticized raid of the Rainbow Lounge last June, authorities from both organizations admitted wrongdoings that resulted in the firings of three TABC officers and a rewriting of the rules regarding nightclub raids. But despite all of that and an abject apology to the gay community from the mayor of Fort Worth, police are pressing charges against two of the victims of the raid, including the man who suffered a severe brain injury at the hands of sheriff's deputies.

    City prosecutors in Fort Worth, Texas, announced on February 24 that they would press charges against two patrons of the Rainbow Lounge Gay bar who were injured in a police raid last June. Chad Gibson suffered a severe brain injury while in police custody that kept him hospitalized for a week. Officers said he fell and hit his head while handcuffed. He said he was injured when officers slammed him against a wall inside the bar. Gibson is being charged with "public intoxication" and "assaulting a state agent." George Armstrong suffered severe bruising and muscle strain while being arrested. He is charged with "public intoxication." Adam Seidel, the attorney for both men, said his clients are not willing to accept a plea bargain and asked that a date be set for the trial. He declined to state categorically if prosecutors offered a deal, but said he was surprised they did not drop the charges entirely. "The city's message has been, 'Let's learn from this and move forward and get past it,'" Seidel said. "That doesn't seem to be consistent with prosecuting these two victims."

  • 46. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Thanx, dieter, for the sharing this story. Of note, the story has missed the MSM (Main Stream Media) i.e. TV. This reminds me of what happened in NY at the gay bars, which sparked changes in the law – one can only hope! <3 David

  • 47. ol&p  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Wonderful, trial reenactment starring Adrienne Barbeau. Talk about gay heaven!

  • 48. Kyle  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:59 am

    So a question: I was thinking of different scenarios with the ruling. And I presume that whichever way Walker goes with this, there will most definitely be an appeal. And we can assume that the appeal will most surely be heard by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. But what if we win at the appeals level? The Supreme Court is not obliged to hear the case even of Pugno fights the ruling.They could just let the lower court ruling stand so as not to have to wade into the fight. Is there any thinking on this? The USSC would have to base their decision on the law, and considering what seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence and precedent presented by the plaintiffs, I think it would be VERY difficult for them to come up with something that can fly. So I'm wondering if they would be inclined to not get involved with it at all. The case as presented deals specifically with Prop 8, and a ruling in favor of same sex marriage will still only speak to the unconstitutional nature of prop 8 as it relates to California law. So it seems entirely possible to me that the court would find it palatable to allow it to stand as opposed to wading in and putting themselves in the position of having to hold their nose while they furthered discrimination versus having to display the courage to make the only ruling that makes sense here.

  • 49. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:12 am

    That all depends on a few things:
    first of all if they find that we are a "suspect class", and that prop 8 is unconstitutional, then a ruling to side with us at the supreme court level would make gay marriage legal in every state by default.

    you cannot have a federal law only cover people in certain states.

    seems to me that the conservative judges we currently suffer with on the scotus..would just LOVE to take the case, and rule against us to be able to say..look nation, we saved all the states from suffering through gay marriage.

    if they rule against us..they have a few gays getting mad. if they rule FOR us, then an entire nation goes up in arms…no brainer for them to rule against us.
    If this goes to scotus we will lose.

  • 50. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:27 am

    And that's why judges are appointed for life. So they (theoretically) don't have to care about public opinion, and can just rule on the law. Of course, if they're biased anyway, that doesn't help.

  • 51. Kyle  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Yes, I see where the conservative supreme court might be inclined to rule against us based on their principles. But their ruling has to stand up to legal standard; they have to justify their ruling. Granted, I am looking at this from a biased perspective, but I do not see how they can argue a legally justified state interest in banning same sex marriage. And whatever justification they make, they are obliged to articulate it for the ages. There's the added issue of legacy as well. Do they want to be the court who decides it is acceptable to deny equal protection and/or due process based on nothing more than sexual orientation? Maybe they do. Maybe they're okay with that, but I was thinking perhaps it would be easier to just not take the case at all. and leave whatever the lower court ruling decides.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Kyle, what I'm most concerned about is the very real possibility that it will be determined at some judicial level (trial, appeal) that the law only needs to meet the lowest standard of review. By that standard, Prop 8 only needs to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. And what is considered a legitimate government interest is pretty broad. Very few laws are struck down using this level of review.

    In fact, the Defendant-Intervenors have identified in their recent Trial Brief twenty-four "vital governmental interests" (their words), including a sweeping "Any other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings."

    Point being, if the Court wants to find a way to uphold it, there is certainly grounds, no matter how disingenuous the argument may appear to us.

  • 53. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Right. The SCOTUS ruling, if any, is going to be pretty much up to the personal beliefs of the individual judges. It could easily go either way.

  • 54. Ed-M  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:47 am

    SCOTUS could manage to wriggle their way to splitting the difference: they could overrule Proposition 8 and all the other antigay marriage ballot questions yet do not determine that same-sex marriage is a right. How??? They could just go back to Romer vs. Evans and restate that an unpopular minority (i.e., individuals who are members of that minority) cannot be subjected to whims of the majority in order to block their redress of grievances through the legislature and the courts, and that LGBTIQQ persons could still petition the state legislatures and state courts for recognition ofd same-sex marriages. Otherwise… we are not citizens… but subjects.

  • 55. Ed-M  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:48 am

    What I meant to say in the last sentence: if they rule in favor of the D-I's, then we are not citizens… but subjects.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:02 am

    I'm not sure I understand your point about splitting the difference. Tthe only way ss marriage can be prohibited in a state is if there's a law against it (or a de facto law because the state refuses to issue licenses to ss couples).

    But if the Supremes overturn Prop 8, a law which defines marriage as only a union between a man and woman, because it violates the US Constitution, then any other state law which does the same would also be unconstitutional.

    I'm not understanding your reasoning as to how Prop 8 could be overturned, yet a state could still prohibit ss marriage.

  • 57. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Kyle, while this case is only challenging a California law, the claim is that it violates the US Constitution. IF we were to win at the US Supreme Court level, even without a determination that g&ls are a "suspect class", it would mean that any law, in any state, which bans ss marriage would be unconstitutional.

    Further, IF the Supreme Court decided that g&ls are a suspect class, it would mean that any law discriminating against g&ls would be unlikely to withstanding a Constitutional challenge.

    As to whether the Supreme Court is likely to grant cert, I think the chances are greater that they will if we win at the Appeals Court level than if we lose there. If we were to win at the 9th Circuit, it would mean that different parts of the country would be controlled by different Federal standards and that's often a reason for the Supremes to take on an issue. But then, maybe if we win, it will be the conservatives on the Court who will want to review it.

  • 58. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:30 am

    if we win at walkers court and the 9th circuit..there is NO way in hell that the SCOTUS will not hear the case….

    they will not allow half the country to live by one set of rules while the east coast is forced to live by another….

    if they did the entire west coast would be inundated by
    and while I like that idea because it greatly increases the dating pool for me…it aint gonna happen!!

    it would no longer be west coast / east coast….

    it would be gay coast / straight coast

  • 59. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:56 am

    @dieter – another reason to love being on the left coast 🙂

  • 60. Kyle  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Are you sure about any law in any state? Even if those laws are supposedly based on other grounds? I mean, I understand what you're saying in principle, but from what I've read, a win for us here would not necessarily extend to all laws limiting ss marriage. For example, a win for our side would not automatically nullify DOMA, would it? I have neither read or heard anything that would lead me to believe this would be so.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:18 am

    @Kyle, my comment was discussion of the consequences of winning at the level of the US Supreme Court, not the trial court or the 9th Circuit.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:40 am

    @Kyle, I just realized that you must have realized I was talking about the Supreme Court.

    Yes. If the US Supreme Court holds that a law which limits marriage only to the union of a man and woman violates the US Constitution, then no state in the country will be allowed to enforce such a law.

    That doesn't mean that laws might not stay on the books after that, but the minute a state tried to enforce one of them, it could be challenged and the result would be an easy win to overturn. I think I read somewhere that in the case of Loving v Virginia (the case which struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law), Alabama didn't get their law off the books until sometime late in the 20th century. But after the 1967 Supreme Court case, no state was going to be able to enforce it.

  • 63. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Alabama finally got rid of it in 2000. A friend of mine who lives there asked me about that recently, because she didn't know if it had ever actually been repealed.

  • 64. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:48 am

    The worst part was that there were still people campaigning to keep it on the books.

  • 65. Kyle  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Thanks for the insight, Kathleen.

  • 66. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 2, 2010 at 12:48 am

    I have a question.
    What really happens if we win on all levels before SCOTUS?
    The decision will be final and will be implemented right away?
    Or, because D-Is will be appealing to SCOTUS, we'll have to wait for what SCOTUS decides?
    If we'll have to wait and not have marriage equality for the time being, then SCOTUS may very well stall the process (just like those “filibastards” that stall your health reform) for years, waiting for the society to become more acceptable and vote our rights back to us… Is this a real possibility?


    “For example, a win for our side would not automatically nullify DOMA, would it?”

    DoMA is a different thing. Courts cannot make decisions like that, I think it's called “legislating from the bench,” they don't do that, it is for legislature to deal with it, but if somebody challenges DoMA in court (and it is already being challenged), that's a different question — they will consider their previous decision that overturned Prop 8, and will do the same with DoMA.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2010 at 1:44 am

    “For example, a win for our side would not automatically nullify DOMA, would it?”

    DOMA would be no different than any other law. IF the US Supreme Court holds that banning ss marriage is unconstitutional, DOMA would become unenforceable.

  • 68. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2010 at 1:52 am

    @Kirill, I don't know the exact timeline for a Supreme Court appeal, but I don't think they can just drag it out indefinitely. The parties only have a certain amount of time in which to appeal and then the Court must either grant or deny cert. I think there is also a specific timeline for the Court to make their decision as to which cases they'll hear and then put it on their docket. All this takes time, but I don't think a case is allowed to just linger in a state of limbo indefinitely.

    I'll see if I can find a more specific answer.

  • 69. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 2, 2010 at 3:56 am


    Considering that this is the Supreme Court, the highest in the land, their caseload in tremendous and I think their timeline allows them to delay these decisions for years (if I'm not mistaken, Brian Leubitz mentioned something about it in his posts during the trial back in January). Not indefinitely, but we may look at years. So, I'm curious what's going to happen in the meantime.

    Also, I think if the Supremes will make us wait so much, we're just gonna have to overload them even more and make some similar cases from other states that also prohibited same-sex marriage at the ballot box (again, Brian Leubitz mentioned that, too, to the best of my memory which is not that good) — several cases are more likely to draw Justices' attention (to stop unnecessary litigations and put the issue to rest), especially if there will be contradictory judicial decisions from different states (again, in order to stop the rivalry and finally rule on the issue).

    We need lawyers to explain the real timetable.

  • 70. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2010 at 5:56 am

    It's true that it will take years, but that's just because that's the time it takes for a case to wind its way up through the various appeals.

    I looked up the USSC's procedures and a party has 90 days in which to file an appeal from a lower court decision – that is 90 days in which to file a petition requesting cert. The clock starts ticking once the lower court's issues its ruling. The court has the discretion to extend that by 60 days, but it would have to be for good cause (not often done). There are other things that could stretch it out a bit. For example, if one of the parties asks for an en banc review at the 9th Circuit, the clock doesn't start until either the Circuit court denies the request for en banc review or they meet en banc and issue a ruling.

    I can't figure out exactly how long the Supreme Court has to act on the petition for cert but if they deny cert, it will be dispensed with fairly quickly (less than a year, I would think). If they grant cert, then I think it goes on the next year's docket. So from time of 9th Circuit decision to getting through the Supreme Court, we're probably looking at a year or two, give or take.

    I know that seems forever, but that's just the slow way cases grind through the courts. However, I don't think the SC has the option to intentionally drag things out.

    As to what happens to the status of ss marriage in the meantime, it's almost certain that if we were to win at any stage shy of the Supreme Court, the judge will issue a stay until all appeals are played out. There are a lot of procedural steps that go into that, but the result is basically, marriage would likely not be allowed until either the SC rules or refuses to hear the case.

    As to bringing suit in other Circuits. Yes, it's true that having different Circuits split on an issue, makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will grant cert. And if they decide not to take this case, and we want a SC decision then, the next step would be to bring suit in another Circuit.

    You can read the document "Rules of the Supreme Court" here:
    In that document you can read the section "Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari" (page 9 of the PDF). It talks about what things the Court considers in deciding whether or not to review a case.

    Hope that help clarify things.

  • 71. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 2, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Thank you for digging up all that information (it's not easy for a Russian guy to swim akin fish in legal filings).
    Well, Rule 10 is basically talking about ruling on conflict decisions, nothing else…
    If D-Is come to SCOTUS with appeal (which means we won on all the other levels), can we really say that this issue is in conflict with something else? No idea. They can twist in many ways and tailor it as narrowly as they possibly can…
    If we lose, they really have no interest in hearing the case… We really need to win to make them look like the bad guys.
    Personally, I'm hoping for the “suspect classification” tag — this is really the way to go. I wonder who decides that…


  • 72. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Kirill, Sorry for sending you off to that document without being a little more clear. Didn't mean to make your head explode 🙂 And I always forget that English isn't your first language because your written English is superb. If I ever use a word, slang, or an idiom that you don't understand please ask

    Rule 10 is really just clarifying a couple of things. First, it makes it clear that having the Supreme Court review a case is not a right. That is, it's up to the court whether or not to review a case.

    The second thing the Rule articulates is the kinds of legal questions that might be reasons for the Court to decide to review a case. It's not a "rule" per se (it clearly states that these are not the only reasons, nor do these reasons guarantee that the court will review), they are merely "guidelines" to explain the kinds of legal questions that the Court considers compelling enough to decide to review.

    One of the several situations they articulate is the case when different Circuit Courts of Appeal have come to conflicting conclusions on the same question of law. But there is nothing that requires this situation in order for the Court to decide to hear a case. They can basically take any case they want where there's a question of federal law, including questions of federal constitutionality.

  • 73. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    The question of who decides the issue of "suspect class" … that's a conclusion of law (as opposed to a finding of fact), which means that even if Walker comes to that conclusion, it's a matter up for review in the various appeals.

  • 74. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 3, 2010 at 12:39 am

    “Sorry”? I say thank you for finding that information and sending me off there! I meant that I don't know how the whole system works in the US and where to look for answers. That's what I was saying (I probably screwed up with the phrasing due to my, obviously, no so superb English :D).

    After reading everything you've said about it, I came to a conclusion that SCOTUS can do whatever the hell they want with any case that grinds its way all the way up to the SCOTUS. So, we're kind of screwed.

    And thank you for explaining about suspect classification — it's good to know that any federal judge can rule to acknowledge we are suspect class, which means we'll get to read on what grounds this decision was made and try to defend this question of law when SCOTUS tries to overrule it.


  • 75. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Interesting news about the white house website, wherein the Obama administration is already working on his next election strategy.

    they have changed his slogan from "sweeping reform" to
    "incremental changes to stabilize this nation"

    it seems quite clear he is failing at everything he promised, and he somehow thinks that by suddenly changing his motto to "incremental" changes, that we silly gays will say oh gee..look..he IS on our side..he is just taking small steps…

    lol..what a joke. say buh-bye Obama. this will be your last term.

  • 76. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Yes, sadly, I agree dieter. It is indeed unfortunate, but what did we really expect? The Repugnants (GOP) in Congress have been beating their war drums and have been spinning their web of deceit and treachery (something they have a lot of practice at doing), since Obama took office. Additionally, Clinton, when he ran, made grandiose promises to our community, as well and what did we get DADT! <3 David

  • 77. PDXAndrew  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Does GOP stand for 'Government Of the Privileged'?

  • 78. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Yes, I believe it does! Thanx, I had missed that one! <3 David

  • 79. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:32 am

    It's times like these when I really wish more people took third parties seriously. Maybe we could get some actual change. Personally, I hate the "lesser of two evils" idea when it comes to politics.

  • 80. Bob  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:30 am

    yes Andrew, you've got it, Government Of the Priviledged, in order to understand the political landscape, we need to view it from this perspective.

    The U.S. is unwilling to do this, still falsely believing in a land of equal opportunities, democracy, bla bla bla, The U.S. is a Theocracy of the strongest and yet most subtle form, in the sense that the everyday person is unaware of the situation.

    The Religious Right rules the country, not only the U.S. but uses that as a base for taking over other countries around the globe. What they put forth as a battle against terrorism, or a battle to bring equality to or help others enjoy freedoms, is a sham. If it weren't so, as our Russian friend continually points out, this fight would not be happening on the ground in the most powerful country in the world.

    To be in this situation today, the choice is do we want the U.S. to be the most powerful country, or do we want equal rights, this is a precarious situation, if there is civil disobedience on the streets, in the U.S. how will that affect the wars presently engaged in. Certainly the countries experiencing the aggession would cheer with glee. Would troops be required to come home to still the unrest. Obviously the most powerful country has found itself stretched to the max.

    Obama (we all wanted) was a breath of fresh air, but obviously he was naive to the situation he was walking into. I doubt he is a member of (The Family, you know the organization that holds the prayer meetings, and controls the political power base, please research them) He can do nothing unless he is invited by them to be member which means putting God first, and their version of God overlooks the needy and rewards the weatlhy, through successfull use of power to their benefit.

    Should equal rights take a back seat in order to preserve a power base that is being led by the religious right, or would this be an opportunity to drive the final wedge between church and state, and have the whole world celebrate . and breathe a sigh of relief.

  • 81. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Yes, I agree whole heartedly! America was not founnded to be a theocracy, yet the Religious Right would have us believe, we are a Christian nation! BS – if you see my posting at #44, you will understand this nation, contrary to what we have been told is not a nation founded upon Christianity! <3 David

  • 82. Urbain  |  March 1, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I agree, John, about the third parties. The problem is trying to get on the ballot every election. There is a HUGE bias favoring the two-party system that happened after the League of Women's Voters allowed Ross Perot to participate in the presidential debates. I can't remember who took over running the debates after that, but since Perot, no third party candidate is given a chance.

    Ironically, in the 2008 presidential elections, neither Obama nor McCain had submitted their paperwork in time. The state just added them in. But the Libertarians were challenged throughout the state for far lesser compliance issues.

  • 83. Urbain  |  March 1, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I meant to say "Texas" about the paperwork deadline that Obama and McCain missed. Sorry.

  • 84. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Great interview by Bill Moyers with Ted Olson and David Boies. Give it a listen, you'll feel better than ever that the cause is in good hands.

    [youtube =]

  • 85. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:20 am

    You can see the full interview and also read the transcript (for anyone with limited video capabilities) here:….

  • 86. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Another heterosexual male pig who just happens to have political power charge with assault against his wife. New York's, White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley is charged with 3rd degree assault.

    There is a video of this slime ball with the article.

    "This is a deeply personal matter, and something that happened within my family. I'm not going to discuss these charges in detail other than to say that I'm innocent and that I will contest the charges," said Mayor Bradley"…..

    (me)you are a public official and you are suppose to set an example that follows the moral compass and traditional values of American society… are wife beater!

    "The complaint she filed against her husband says that Bradley physically injured her by, "grabbing her left arm and placing her hand against a door frame" and that "with his other hand (he) closed the door on his wife's hand, causing pain and bruising to her left middle finger". "I have to set the record straight. I did not mistreat my wife in any way. There have been problems in my marriage for some time and I have made many efforts to deal with them. At this time my thoughts are with my family and our two beautiful daughters," said Mayor Bradley."

    (me) so your wife is lying?

    The worst part is….they will either stay married or he will find another chick to marry and do the same thing too…..but LGBTQQI people can't get married….pift…hypocrites….double standards….ugggg…WTF!!!……<3….Ronnie

  • 87. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:37 am

    UC Davis LGBT Center Vandalized
    By Julie Bolcer 3.1.10

    "The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center at the University of California, Davis, was vandalized with antigay messages in spray paint found Saturday morning." as well as, "a Jewish student found a swastika carved into her dorm room door"

    Now if the Hateros are the "victims" in this country…. can somebody please tell where is all the anti-hatero messages in spray paint?….ripped sighs don't count….<3…Ronnie

  • 88. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Oh yeah, I heard about that from a couple of my friends at Davis yesterday. News travels faster on Facebook, I guess.

  • 89. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Didn't really finish my thought. It's depressing that this kind of thing can happen at a university (a real one, not something like the Falwell Indoctrination Clinic). You'd think they would be smarter than that.

  • 90. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Westboro Baptish Church says it will protest at North Bergen soldier's funeral
    By Ron Zeitlinger/The Jersey Journal
    March 01, 2010, 4:02PM

    The Westboro Baptist Church, which goes around the country spreading its own brand of hate religion, announced in a news release this afternoon that a contingent will demonstrate at the funeral of Sgt. Marcos A. Gorra of North Bergen tomorrow in West New York.

    In the past the church group has carried signs celebrating the deaths of soldiers. The group cites the United States' "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy for its hatred. The group is wholly anti-gay and believes that gays should not serve in the military.

    In its news release, the WBC says "military funerals have become pagan orgies of iloatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool."

    Gorra's funeral Mass will be held at St. Mary's Church on 65th Street in West New York. Police Director Albert Bringa said he would have extra officers working near the church.

    Westboro Baptist Church officials did not return a phone call or an email for comment.

    (me) All I can say is ……….WOW!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

  • 91. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Is it bad that this no longer disturbs me? It seems tame for them.

  • 92. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:49 am

    It disturbs me….have you seen their website?…it reads like a Uganda road map….<3…Ronnie:

    P.S. I'm not posting the link because the website URL is disgusting….just google The Westboro Baptist Church…its the first listing that comes up.

  • 93. John  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:50 am

    I mean this particular event, not the organization in general. I've just come to expect it.

  • 94. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:54 am

    still…these reich Hateros keep trying to play the victim but protesting a private a funeral disturbing a grieving mother…who the F#$^ do these F$%^$^* POS ingrate SOB mother F&%&*%&( think they are……this goy died protecting their F%*I&$* freedom to protest in pubic not a private event….they are F#&$^*(& Ingrates….and I hope someone hires a sniper and takes them out….or at least scare the shite out of them…..<3…Ronnie

  • 95. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:08 am

    My post below was meant to thread with this comment.

    Did you know these wackos actually protested at the funeral of Mr. Rogers for his "failure to condemn homosexuality"?

  • 96. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 7:57 am

    I understand what you mean, John. These people are so far to the extreme that even religious orgs that I consider extreme try to distance themselves from these nut jobs. The part that does still really disturb me is when I see children in their group out there with the signs. Ironic, huh. I'm most concerned about "protecting the children" from their sick lifestyle.

  • 97. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:14 am

    This country just keeps getting stranger and stranger..LOL:

  • 98. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:17 am

    I've tended to look at the WBC as a paper tiger, preaching hate but never actually inflicting any violence upon anyone and unable to inspire much more than contempt. After hearing the ordeal of emotional and physical abuse that Nate Phelps and others suffered at the hands of paterfamilias Fred Phelps, however, I view the WBC as a much more sinister organization.

  • 99. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:31 am

    You know what is an even funnier thing about these WBC hatero psychos…..shouldn't these children be in school?….I saw one video that had the time and date and those kids should be in school….unless they are home schooled which is possibility but still…those kids need be ripped out of their homes are permanently placed into married same sex homes filled with Love….oh the Irony….<3….Ronnie

  • 100. celdd  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    I've read elsewhere, but don't have documentation, that their motives are to get people outraged to provoke a confrontation and a push or other action. Then they sue and get $$$ from settlements.

    "Some people say" that's how they support themselves.

  • 101. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Wouldn't surprise me. The link Straight Ally posted to the website for Nate Phelps offers a lot of insight into this group. I don't doubt that the patriarch has some serious mental health issues. It's amazing, and a real testament to the human will, that any of the children have escaped.

  • 102. PDXAndrew  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Ugh… Those guys disgust me. I can't wait for the day we can protest/celebrate at Phelps's funeral.

    I don't know If I can sign this in our usual manner when it's got that b*stard's name in the same message… I'm afraid the mater/anti-matter reaction would melt my poor iPhone

  • 103. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Ronnie, I think we can all do with some humor at the expense of the WBC:

    (NSFW language!)

    [youtube =]

  • 104. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:34 am

    "If American is doomed then why don't you get out"……..bwaaaaaaaaaa….I love that chick….<3…Ronnie

  • 105. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:16 am

    This website is awesome…. it has the phone numbers for these baptists freaks….I called all of them…they are legit….we should inundate them with….Love…..flood their voicemail….hahahahahahaha…..<3…..Ronnie

  • 106. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Another tragic young death:

  • 107. fiona64  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I wrote an article on my Goodreads author blog after Andrew Koenig's suicide. This is the third one in a week, you know …

    We have GOT to do better about talking about depression and mental illness. It is NOT something to be ashamed of.


  • 108. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Yes, I agree, fiona64. It is indeed sad to hear of all of these young people, who live with depression stepping over the edge. Been there, did that…! <3 David

  • 109. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Payback is a bitch:

  • 110. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Oh Jesus's body is a cracker…Lauren Ashley is more then just another blonde bobble head dense dolt…..she's trashy looking too…<3…Ronnie:

    Miss Pasadena Clarifies Biblical Homophobia
    Written by Jonathan Higbee | Friday, 26 February 2010

    The former Miss Beverly Hills, not seemingly upset with having her crown revoked yesterday by the mayor, has taken to LA's NBC 4 to defend herself…and God, people. After all, it's only him, not her, who wants to kill gays for being born.

    "Do you know that passage?" asks the reporter.

    "I do," she replies.

    "What does it say?"

    "Uhm… It's in Leviticus," replies the MENSA member.

    Check out the video of the interview by opening the story for more of the hilarious awkard moments.

    (hahaha….the B!tch got her crown taken away)

  • 111. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:07 am

    More from the girl who knows nothing about reality….<3…Ronnie:

  • 112. fiona64  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Remember, Ronnie. The people who announce "the bible says it …" generally have no idea what the bible actually says. They cannot cite chapter and verse; they just know what they were spoonfed by their ministers.


  • 113. Ronnie  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Oh I know that but if you watch the first video attached to the article from Instinct Magazine she didn't even know that….she definitely was spoon fed this [email protected] but my guess is that she stuck her finger down her throat afterwards and forgot most of it….Holy GaGa… Lauren Ashley is dumb….it deservers repeating because its funny….hehehe….<3…Ronnie

  • 114. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    And history was just made today in California:

  • 115. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:47 am

    The history part is that Mr. Perez is the first EVER openly gay speaker of the house in the state of California.

  • 116. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:48 am

    WOOHOOO…Ford just backed out of running for NY senator..LOL…
    knew he was a lying punk.
    at the HRC meeting we made it perfectly clear he was not welcome.

  • 117. dieter  |  March 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Another Hater bites the dust!!!

  • 118. Bob  |  March 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

    David Kimble, thanks for your posting, if anyone reading these chats gives a hoot about anything, even the smallest incling of wanting to understand why there is no equality for gays in the U.S. Please please please back up and READ , then REREAD and READ AGAIN
    Posting number 44 that's 44 to save the U.S. read 44
    44 44 44 44

  • 119. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    This is worth watching:
    "DC gay marriage opponents appeal to high court"

  • 120. Urbain  |  March 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Good find, Kathleen. If the Supreme Court takes it, I wonder how this will affect the Prop 8 trial? The implications are enormous, at least in my opinion.

  • 121. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    If they take this, I think it's a very bad sign.

  • 122. Urbain  |  March 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    I agree.

  • 123. BMc  |  March 1, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Hi. I wonder if there is a place where I can tell which video covers which testimony, other than cross referencing the court transcriptions. It would be great if there was a summary outline or something.

  • 124. tires rack&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Blog Browser…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

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