Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Why We Must Tell America the Truth About the Prop 8 Trial

Community/Meta Televising Trial analysis

by Cleve Jones

In his most famous speech, my good friend Harvey Milk urged LGBT people to come out of the closet. “For invisible, we remain in limbo,” he said.

Harvey knew that full equality would not become reality as long as the public was also shielded from the truth about who we are. The hollow arguments at the foundation of our institutionalized second class citizenship would never be challenged unless we embraced our identities publicly.

With closing arguments in the Prop. 8 trial scheduled for this Wednesday, Harvey Milk’s words ring as true today as they did when they were first uttered in 1978. And all parties to the Prop. 8 trial know it.

That’s why the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action gathered nearly 140,000 petition signatures asking to have the historic federal trial over Proposition 8 (Perry vs. Schwarzenegger) televised back in January. It’s also why we launched the Prop. 8 Trial Tracker blog, which has received two million hits so far, to help everyday Americans stay connected to the important and historic events happening in the courtroom.

And it’s why last month, we launched an unprecedented grassroots campaign to bring this historic trial to life across America through a project called Testimony: Equality on Trial.


But most Americans have not seen this evidence.

That’s because after successfully petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to deny public access to the trial, Prop. 8’s supporters have fought to strike their own witness testimony from the official trial record. Their objective has been to keep the truth “invisible” to the American people no matter what the outcome of a case that is likely to continue until it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court – a process that could take years.

Now is the time to answer Harvey Milk’s call to action by taking the Prop. 8 trial out of the legal abstract and into the public square. It is time to empower the tens of millions of Americans who are also on trial because of the lies at the heart of Prop. 8 – but whose stories will never be admitted into evidence in this case.

Through videotaped, guerrilla theater trial re-enactments and depositions by everyday Americans who have come to understand the destructive power of discrimination, Testimony can be the definitive public education campaign for the LGBT equality movement.

It all starts with your participation. All you need is a camera, a friend, and an internet connection.

Visit the Equality on Trial Website to get involved today.

Follow Equality on Trial on Facebook

I created the Names Project, known as the AIDS Memorial Quilt, to engage every American who knew anyone afflicted by the pandemic and to bring AIDS and HIV out of the shadows. That project changed the way our country, including the government and health researchers, viewed HIV/AIDS. And that’s precisely what Testimony will do for equal rights.

I remember when Anita Bryant used her virulent brand of homophobia to strip basic rights from LGBT people in Dade County, Florida in 1972. My generation of activist – the Stonewall Generation – vowed never to accept public votes on our rights. As Ted Olson says, “when the rights of minorities are voted on, minorities usually lose. That’s why we have the constitution and the federal courts.”

This trial is the best shot the Stonewall Generation has of seeing full equality. The strategy of fighting state by state, county by county and city by city has created a patchwork of inequality where some have certain rights, others none. It divides Americans from each other. And it fails to recognize that true equality can only come from the Federal Government.

Our challenge in the months ahead is to share the testimony heard by Judge Walker with our fellow citizens and our representatives in government; to accelerate the profound shift in public opinion on this issue and to make that change evident to the President, Congress and Supreme Court.

We need your help to ensure that this trial, and the millions who will be impacted by its outcome, are invisible no more.


  • 1. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    We must all come out of the closets, no matter where we are or where we work.

  • 2. Michael  |  June 17, 2010 at 3:45 am

    For some of us, coming out of the closet would mean losing a job. It's not that my boss wouldn't understand; she wouldn't WANT to understand.

  • 3. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 5:47 am

    That is why those of us who can come out of the closet need to come out of the closet. Only in that way do we make it safe for everyone to come out of the closet without losing their livelihood.

  • 4. Mandy  |  June 17, 2010 at 5:53 am

    For some of us it's too late to come out. While I will remain a very vocal suporter of equal rights; I can only do so from the outside. My life isn't the only one that would be affected and the happiness of my family means much more to me than ever being who I am, openly. But I have been following this trial closely since the begining and have my optimistic fingers crossed for a favorable ruling. <3

  • 5. JonT  |  June 16, 2010 at 2:01 pm


  • 6. Kathleen  |  June 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    me too.

  • 7. anon  |  June 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Oh wow, just watching the reenactment made my eyes tear up. I can't even imagine how incredible it must have been in real life, and I can't believe America was robbed of the opportunity to witness it.

  • 8. Felyx  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Damn I wish I could play Cooper!!! He is the proverbial hazed frat-boy crying 'Thank you Sir! (Your Honor) May I have another'!!! Unprepared, without substantial material, growing more hoarse by the minute (no it was definitely NOT a good idea!); good God! the man couldn't even complete his sentences!!! He made no sense and wasn't even able to keep his own argument straight in his head. Best of all, after two hours sweating it out with an ordinary overused garden spade, Judge Walker offered him a back-hoe and he went back to work eagerly digging his (dare I say) professional grave with renewed vigor.

    I was waiting for him to just start ranting and yelling…'But they're Queers!' and 'You're not understanding me because you're just a homo too!' I am not sure I could get through the performance without succumbing to revealing his argument for what it was with high school comments like, 'Because God says so!' and 'Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!'

    Actually it is a good thing I will not be asked to play his part…I would not be able to get through it with a straight face…please…no comments from the peanut gallery. ;`P The temptation to sarcastically spoof him would be overwhelming. It was not even possible for me to read it aloud with my friends and family without falling down on the floor chocking on my own laughter. No eye was without a flood of tears. I was screaming, howling and laughing so hard my vocal cords went out just reading about his!!!

    No I will leave this up to the cooler heads who can do this with the reverence and seriousness that it deserv……Pppphhttttttt! Ha!! Ha!!! HA!!! Oh God…I can't even write this without LMAO!!!

    Felyx – Still ROTFLM-GD-AO even 5 hours later!!

  • 9. couragecampaign  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    So spoof him. Do it!

  • 10. Kathleen  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    I agree. Do it; I want to see it!!

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Yeah, we can get together and I'll be Ted Olson, BZ can be Judge Walker and you spoof Coop. GOOD GOD MAN! That will be perfect! Of course I will need a wig. Ted Olson has a lot more hair than I have.

    Speaking of hair–did you happen to notice how our evidence is as thick as Ted Olson's hair, and their "evidence" is as thin as Cooper's hair?
    Just sayin'

  • 12. Felyx  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:50 am

    The logistics of doing this is in real life would be simply overwhelming for me. Furthermore, assembling the cast of P8TT faithful would be financially near untenable….so I am doubtful that there would be any possible way of actually doing this in real life.

    … (Pause for dramatic effect…)

    Fortunately we have Virtual Reality!!! Yeah!! So if enough of you are TRULY serious then contact me through KirilleXXI on Facebook. Second Life © (SL) can offer us a platform to assembly an international cast of P8TT faithful who can gather together and re-enact this trial in a real-time environment with a stage that will be as true to life as we can design it.

    If you really think this is worth doing then it is time to put up!!! We can write a script (several really), set up accounts on SL, build a set, and re-enact this entire trial as seriously or humorously as we desire! Check it out and let us know!


  • 13. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:00 am

    That is an Affirmative, my P8TT friends!!! Second Life is awesome and can do this reenactment justice! If there are enough people contacting us then we will help you all put on a great Virtual Re-enactment!!!


  • 14. Alan E.  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Cooper actually looked better than the guy from the Alameda County Registrar. He was completely blind-sided.

  • 15. Shun  |  June 16, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Prop. 8 trial: Judge troubled by lack of evidence from defense

  • 16. kristin  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    It sounds like the writer of that article wasn't in the courtroom back in January and assumed facts based on the judge's questions. The defense presented *two*witnesses not one as he reports: "Prop. 8 defenders, who presented just one witness to counter nearly two solid weeks of testimony from the plaintiffs."

    The next line he quotes from the judge: ""Why did you present but one witness on this subject?" Walker asked Prop. 8 lead attorney Charles Cooper"

    If the stupid writer could read and comprehend he would have noticed that the judge asked why one witness was presented on this *subject.*

    *sigh* I bet that flew over most people's heads too and they didn't even notice.

  • 17. kristin  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Well said Mr. Jones, well said!

    I shared the story of David Rambo and his partner with my family. They've been together for 30 years and were finally able to get married in October 2008. I also shared the story of Clay and Harold from Sonoma. It hasn't changed hearts or minds within my family. "It is an immoral lifestyle choice that I shouldn't have to accept and it is not equal to my marriage" is pretty much what my grandma said. The only silverlining I see, is that older people who hold with my grandma are closer to the end of their lives then the young people like me. I adore my grandma and she's a wonderful person but given her stance on issues like this, I can't help but look at her differently.

  • 18. Straight Grandmother  |  June 16, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Kristin, the only solace you can take is that not all families are like yours. My parents in thier 80's with walkers and wheel chairs attended our son's wedding at the Unitarian national Cathedral in Washington DC last April. It was a no brainer, he is their grandson. You got dealt a bad hand, luck of the draw, being born into a non tolerant family. But take solace in the fact that not all familes are like that. I do understand how you would look at your grandma diferently, I get it. Holdd your head up high is all. Your BEST revenge is to find a wonderful wife and live together happily and create your own family.

  • 19. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 12:57 am

    But not all of those who are in your grandmother's age range feel the same as she does, kristin. My mother-in-law is 85 years old, and when we went to Raleigh for the Equality NC day of action, she said that the only reason she was not going with us to "give them a piece of my mind" and let them know that she felt we deserved to have full equality is just that she would get too tired too easily. We cannot judge all people of a given age range to be identical. I am sorry that your grandmother feels the way she does, but at least you are doing your part and speaking up. This is what Harvey wanted all of us to do, and that is what we all need to do. Please do NOT give up hope. You are not alone, and you never know who might be given hope simply because they see you speaking up and living your life the way you are meant to live it.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  June 16, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    From California legal blog The Recorder

    Where’s the Evidence, Walker Asks Prop 8 Supporters

  • 21. Dave T  |  June 16, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    I apologize if this was posted elsewhere…

    The transcripts for the closing arguments are available at scribd:

  • 22. Goerge  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Hello all –

    Great closing arguments, calling attention to the fact that this case is so obviously a matter of law that no evidence was required to demonstrate defendants' position. All the PhDs, social scientists and their research cannot overcome the basic fact that it is reasonable for people to believe and vote that the special relationship between children and their real parents is so valuable and cherished that the definition of marriage should not be changed to include homosexual couples. It is reasonable for people, based on thousands of years of history, to recognize and protect the only relationship that is capable of procreation: a man and a woman. It is reasonable for people to question any research that suggests that children are as well served by homosexual caretakers as they are by their real parents, for all research is subject to researcher bias, poor research design, and researcher error.

    To rule in favor of plaintiffs, this judge would have to rule that it is unreasonable for people to believe that a child's real mom and dad are of huge importance; that it is unreasonable to believe that the union of a man and a woman – the only relationship capable of procreating – is deserving of special treatment; that unions between boys and boys and girls and girls are the same as between men and women despite this obvious huge difference between them that even the youngest child recognizes.

    To rule in favor of the plaintiffs, this judge will have to conclude that those poeple who voted in favor of protecting marriage did so only because they dislike homosexuals. I can understand that that's how it might seem to homosexuals, but this has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry. This is all about protecting marriage from being degraded to just any two people who decide to do so, ignoring the very essence of what marriage is: the institution through which children are created and have the best chance of being brought up by their mother and father.

  • 23. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:25 am

    George, did you really come back here just to throw out the tired old argument that any old pair of idiots who get it on and procreate are automatically good parents? If that is what you did, I strongly suggest you go talk to some CPS workers, SVU workers, or any number of other folks who deal with kids who have been traumatized and abused by their "real parents."

    OTOH, some recent research (by scary, scientist-type people) shows that children reared in lesbian households actually do *better* on all scores of adjustment than other kids.,8599,19… for reference

    I can't help thinking that this is because gay and lesbian couples who have kids, either through adoption, in vitro, or surrogacy, do so because they have carefully *planned* to do so and really want kids, as opposed to some straight couple who has a child because "Bubba's condom done broke in the back of the dad-gum Buick."

    That said, please let me know how allowing more people to marry "degrades marriage." Also, please let me know when you will be supporting legislation that denies marriage to the post-fertile, infertile and childfree since you insist that marriage is for procreation.


  • 24. Casey  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:57 am

    It's interesting that you bring this up. I have been watching the closing arguments during my planning periods at work (I am a teacher at a school for kids who have been removed from their homes). As I read George's comments and looked out over my class, I had a similar thought: all of these kids came from straight households where they were so abused, neglected, and harmed that they aren't allowed to live there anymore. They have come here to work with me (their lesbian teacher) and my gifted therapist colleagues, both straight and gay, who have committed to helping them heal as they await fostercare, adoption, or emancipation. I wonder what they would say if I read them George's comments about one's "real" parents. Who are the real parents to these children? When we have family therapy with their biological families, we hear the same thing time and again: "I was too young. I didn't know how to be a parent". These kids number in the thousands in my state alone. Over the months they are here, I iterally watch them become different kids through therapy, healthy food, exercise, education, love, and safety. Provided by us, gay and straight alike, as a service to our community.

    To those families, and everyone that benefits by how much safer their communities become: you're big gay welcome.

  • 25. Goerge  |  June 17, 2010 at 6:27 am

    You’re logic is twisted; just because some biological parents are not good parents does not mean that all are not good. As a society we should be focussed on the ideal of children being brought up in loving biological parent families. What child who has been traumatized would not have wished that his parents were good parents who loved one another? Rather than adopt the position that since some biological parents are not good so we should allow any combination of caretakers, what we should be doing as a society is 1) promoting good parenting skills by parents; 2) encouraging stable mother-father relationships; 3) Reducing the number of unwanted children through education.

    Putting aside the fact that the research study you mention was headed by a lesbian, majorly funded by pro-homosexual-marriage groups, subjective in its endpoints, and used a non-random group of subjects….what’s scary is that such studies create a slippery slope where decision-making about children is placed in the realm of research and the courts as opposed to common sense; that is, rather than accept the premise that children should be given the opportunity to be brought up in a loving household with their moms and dads, we should assign kids to households where they are likely to “do best” regardless of who their parents are. And before you say that’s outrageous, know that some countries do take children from their parents and place them in special schools so that they can achieve their highest potential in, e.g., the Olympics. Here in the US, courts commonly strip a child from one of its parents in divorce proceedings because contact with one parent is deemed to be not in the child’s best interest.

    Allowing gay people to be “married” degrades marriage by separating the institution from its very essence: the creation of children. In years past, getting marriage was essentially a license to have children, in recognition of the ideal that children should have the opportunity to be brought up in a stable family with their mom and dad. Marriage promotes the unity of the mother and father over time. Societal changes such as no-fault divorce and couples living together have degraded marriage already, and the number of children born out of wedlock is now about 40%: nearly half of all children born are deprived of a parent. Gay marriage says to society that marriage is not about procreating anymore; thus, fewer people will decide to get married for the purpose of having children. Marriage will just be a way of facilitating certain legal transactions between people who choose to be together for a given period of time until they get tired of one another.

    Gay marriage advocates focus on individual rights and ignores society and ignores children’s rights to have two biological parents. From an individual perspective, infertile m/f couples, elderly couples, and childfree couples are no different from homosexual couples; from a societal perspective they are different: these couples serve as examples to society of the ideal relationship: the only relationship that is capable of procreating. Society sees such couples and assumes that these couple can procreate; its implicit in the fact that they are male and female. Thus, elderly couples are presumed to have been married and had children, childless couples are presumed to want children. Homosexual couples cannot procreate, These couples say to society that marriage is not for procreation, so if you’re going to have kids, you don’t need to get married to do so. And more kids will be born without one or more parents, a sad state of affairs.

  • 26. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:08 am

    George wrote: Allowing gay people to be “married” degrades marriage by separating the institution from its very essence: the creation of children.

    So, George, will you be out campaigning to have my childfree marriage annulled, along with the marriages of the infertile and the post-fertile? How long should a couple be allowed to be married without producing children? How will you monitor this? Will you be popping by with pregnancy tests for all married women?

    Marriage is about a whole lot more than popping out kids. You are the one whose logic is twisted. In fact, if the only reason you are married is to have kids, I pity you.

    One need not be married to procreate, and one need not procreate in order to be married — just in case you missed the memo while you were spewing verbose bigotry all over the place.

    One last question — why do you hate the children of gay men and lesbians so much?


  • 27. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:09 am

    George wrote: Society sees such couples and assumes that these couple can procreate; its implicit in the fact that they are male and female. Thus, elderly couples are presumed to have been married and had children, childless couples are presumed to want children.

    Maybe you make those assumptions, George; normal people figure that whether other people have bred is none of their business. In fact, most people don't give it a single moment's thought.


  • 28. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:34 am

    @fiona. I think the reason george hates our children and grandchildren so much may be based in his own confusion over how he got into a loveless marriage with a woman instead of being able to marry his boyfriend. I have noticed that the ones who are the most homophobic and the most misogynistic are frustrated gay men who are trapped in loveless marriages due to their rigid adherence to societal norms that are no longer relevant nor prevalent. they usually also rigidly adhere to misinterpretations and mistranslations of their religions' holy books.

  • 29. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:40 am

    @Richard: Either that, or his wife came out of the closet, left him for another woman *and* was granted custody of the kiddos …


  • 30. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:55 am

    @fiona. You're right. I hadn't thought about that. Of course, it is a real stretch to imagine anyone wanting to marry george in the first place, so I guess it was just too much strain.
    BTW, I finally found the short stories. I will scan them in later this evening and email them to you.

  • 31. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Thanks, Richard — and I know I still owe you a critique on the detective story; I just haven't been able to get to it yet. My apologies.


  • 32. Casey  |  June 17, 2010 at 8:32 am

    It is true that all families should not be judged because some don't do their jobs properly. It is also true that we should focus on educating and supporting families. It's what we do where I work. That's why we exist. Our kids go out to foster and adoptive families who have been educated, know how to parent, and want a child very much. Under George's definition of a "real" family, these loving people should not be allowed to marry – because they cannot procreate. Where would my students, who I cherish, go after treatment? Back to their "real" families? I don't want to be the reality bearer in what is clearly a magnificent fantasyland, but education only goes so far with families who simply never wanted the child they have, or are addicted to various substances, or have serious mental health issues. The reality is that children need a family who wants them, and who are willing and able to care for them. I see that happen with LGBT and straight families alike. There is no difference, once the child is out of his or her abusive environment. And that's the point, really. It's not our logic that's twisted, I'm afraid. In a few decades, when students crack open their history textbooks, it will seem extravagantly uneducated that this struggle needed to occur in the first place. I look forward to that day – and mark me, it will come.

  • 33. Alto  |  June 17, 2010 at 9:01 am

    @ George

    You stated that "getting marriage was essentially a license to have children, in recognition of the ideal that children should have the opportunity to be brought up in a stable family with their mom and dad."

    I know several children that have either been raised in homes where the parents divorced, becoming single parent homes, or where the mothers never married the fathers. They are actually very well adjusted kids, in spite of not having 'their mom and dad.'

    While I can agree with you that two people raising a child may be able to do a better job than one most likely would, I fail to see how a male/female marriage could do a better job than a male/male marriage or a female/female marriage.

    Just because you're selling it doesn't mean I'm buying it.

  • 34. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 9:57 am

    @fiona. No apologies needed. If your schedule is like mine, you probably have days where you wonder if you will even get a chance to take a breath, much less get anything else done.
    And to all my fellow Trial Trackers–the Gilbert Theatre here in Fayetteville is holding auditions on 22 & 23 June for the Rocky Horror Show, and I am auditioning. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

  • 35. Alto  |  June 22, 2010 at 10:09 am

    @ Goerge : You may be interested to know that a study published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies has collected the experiences of gay male partners who have become fathers through surrogacy.

    The conclusion was that the sexual orientation of the parents makes little difference in parenting, and that, the fathers report that their self-esteem and their closeness with their extended families increases after becoming parents.

    It stands to reason that it is published in a GLBT journal, since it is an issue directly affecting GLBT couples, however, one could logically conclude (your conclusion may be different) that increased closeness leads to a better home life, which would allow creation of an absolutely suitable, if not superior, environment for raising a child or children.

    If you'd care to read the article, here is the link:

  • 36. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:26 am


    George wrote: To rule in favor of the plaintiffs, this judge will have to conclude that those poeple who voted in favor of protecting marriage did so only because they dislike homosexuals. I can understand that that’s how it might seem to homosexuals, but this has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry.

    I'm straight, and it sure as hell looks like hatred and bigotry to me. How is it NOT bigotry to take away someone's existing rights because you find them personally distasteful?


  • 37. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Well, I see that Team George is back. Not that any of us have missed your bigoted, misogynistic comments. We actually had hoped you were gone for good. But you see, religious arguments, and "it's always been done that way" are not good enough for an actual court of law. that may pass muster in the court of public opinion, but when you are trying to oppress one segment of society simply because you don't like something about them, you must present valid, peer-reviewed, sustainable evidence as to why it is in the state's best interest to do so. If all it takes is a case as weak as what Mr. Cooper presented, then I could easily ban everybody in this country from having red hair because I am jealous of those who have red hair since my hair is not red and that makes me unhappy. Here we are talking about a fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This case is also about the fundamental right to privacy in your own home. George do you not see that by continuing to keep the government in my bedroom through laws like this, that you also keep the government in your own bedroom. And you see, for us, this is not about sex. We have only had to talk about that aspect of it because those of you who claim to be so enlightened, yet really know nothing about us, are fixatred on the sex aspect of our relationships. Why don't you read my blog sometime and you will see what it is we are fighting to protect from government intrusion, what we are fighting to preserve. But then, I guess you are so fixated on the sex aspect because you aren't getting any at home. Grow up and be a real man who is secure enough in his own relationship that my relationship and my marriage will not be given a second thought. And while there are some mothers and fathers who may be the best choice for their children, ans who are heterosexual, that still does not negate the fact that there are many thousands of us who have children and our children have turned out quite well. In fact there are studies which are showing that children who are parented by same-sex couples are actually turning out as well as those raised by opposite sex couples, and often even better than those raised by opposite sex couples. Probably because we don't get hung up on all of those outdated stereotypical gender roles and the other hangups that are learned in so many households. We believe in sharing tasks based on who is better at doing which tasks, not necessarily what is "woman's work" or "a man's job." We just do what has to be done when it has to be done. So go somewhere that actually has legitimate accreditation and get a real education. Get out of your shell of poor me, and leave the adults alone.

  • 38. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 17, 2010 at 11:25 am


    If I'm not mistaken, since we last heard from George the U.S. Congress and Senate Armed Services Committee voted for the repeal-compromise measure regarding DADT and same-sex marriage was legalized in Portugal and Iceland. The next few years will be a slow and steady stream of losing battles for his side. πŸ˜‰

  • 39. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 11:57 am

    @ Straight Ally #3008. Yes you are right. And I feel that the next battle "Team George" and their ilk will lose is the one over a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And they will see this as proof that evil is overtaking the world, when the reality is so very different. However, I will never go back to the prison that is so wrongly named the closet. I will never again silence my voice when it is time to speak out against injustice. I will never give up until all of us are free. I don't remember who said it, but it is still true today: "No man is free until ALL men are free." And this applies to women and to transgender and intersex people as well. Until all of us are free none of us is truly free.

  • 40. Felyx  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:22 am

    @ Goerge,

    Um…so what?!

    You are still getting PWND. Gays will get married and you can go shack up with Maggie and 'goerge' yourselves on stale cookies.

    Oh…and the Supreme Court is going to uphold the ruling…so remember to bring your own lube!


  • 41. Felyx  |  June 17, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Repost- But I think this accurately sums up the proponents argument and 'goerge's' true feelings…(and I think it is just plain hilarious regardless of how sad it is!)

    Mr. Cooper stated outright that Blankenhorn’s testimony was not needed, evidence was not needed, in fact even facts were not necessary. (Remember, he actually did say these things!)

    No, all that is needed is the understanding that by preventing the ‘by their very nature infertile’ gay couples from marrying and forcing their children (that they can’t have) to be thusly illegitimate (even though the proponents stated purpose of marriage is to make children legitimate) they can then rationally prevent irresponsible procreation in irresponsible mother-fuckers.*

    *The word is blatantly rude but I would contend very appropriate as Cooper explicitly explained that men will otherwise be even more encouraged by gays’ getting married (than they already are without such powerful homoerotic stimulus) to just have sex with any ol’ uterus and accidentally make a baby. The State is therefore obligated to take marriage away from the private individual and co-opt it for nationalist (though not Fascist Nazi-like) purposes and use marriage in a way that it has never before been used (in the land of the free) in order to channel procreative functions (for those of you who might be easily bemused by obtuse verbiage — herd penises into vaginas) within the context of marriage so that children will not be forced into the horrific state of being born out of heterosexual wedlock…a condition that will result in a threat to the survival of all mankind.

    No I am not just making this up…read the closing argument by Mr. Cooper. (If you don’t understand it don’t worry — neither will the Supreme Court!)

    Felyx – Not bemused by obtuse verbiage…or stupidity.

  • 42. Brian  |  June 17, 2010 at 4:36 am

    The problem your case ha,s George, is that while all your statements about what is 'reasonable' for people to believe and vote on, -may- in fact be reasonable…:

    1. A special relationship between children and real parents is valueable and to be cherished
    2. It is important to 'protect' the only procreation relationship: man and woman
    3. It is reasonable to question research

    …To be rational, the law being passed has to address these reasons for voting for it. If not, then these 'reasonable' concerns are not rational. If they are not rational, then it doesn't even hold up against the lowest level of scrutiny.

    For example, I have the 'reasonable' concern that I want to make sure I don't get bit by a dog. If I then said, we should make it illegal to own or manufacture a dog food. Would that be rational? I think not.

    IMHO the Protagonists failed to show in any way how allowing gays to marry would:
    1. Invalidate the special relationship between children and their real parents
    2. "Threaten" in any way the special procreative relationship between men and women
    3. Affect the fact that gay couples can adopt kids, and thus address your concern about child rearing research.

    If there is no link between the law and the concerns, then the concerns are not rational.

    That is why I think Walker will strike down Prop 8, even if he keeps it to the lowest level of scrutiny.

  • 43. Goerge  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Hey Brian –

    Interesting analysis,and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the plaintiffs who have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the voters' votes for Prop8 were not based on a rational relationship to the state's interest in male-female marriages? Or perhaps more simply stated, the plaintiffs have to prove that the only possible reason voters would have voted for Prop8 was purely discriminatory based on animus. I was under the impression that as a matter of law, the defense needs prove nothing if the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof.

    Or am I confusing my issues here?

  • 44. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Perhaps you can explain the legitimate state interest for taking away existing rights, George, since there is no legal requirement that a couple procreate in order to be married. And, in case you missed it, Prop 8 REMOVED the right of same-sex couples to marry.

    You see, there is no such legitimate state interest. There is just more people like you, who think that GBLT people are subhuman and should not have their relationships (and their children) given equal protection under the law.

    Get counseling, George. You need help.


  • 45. Brian  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:21 am

    You're confusing the issue.

    The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

    Emphasis in my case on 'Rationally related".

    Olson also presented arguments against what the proponents presented as the 'legitimate' government interest. But I was conceding that point for the sake of my argument. (Olson didn't in trial.)

  • 46. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Actually, George, it was the logic of those who kept making divorce easier who had the twisted logic. And your logic stating that we cannot procreate, or that when we adopt, we cannot be fit parents, is the logic that is not only twisted but innately flawed. And for you to throw out a study that has been peer-reviewed and found to be sound in its basis and its findings, is yet another example of how anything that may tell the truth about the LGBTQQIA community is seen as less than simply because you refuse to accept it. And you refuse to accept it simply because you refuse to get to know us for who we really are. It is because of people like you who see themselves as morally superior that we have to fight so hard and so long for our fundamental civil rights. Yes, people like you who absolutely refuse to see the truth because they have been so blinded by the fallacy in the logic of "It's always been that way" and who think that any time you extend the legal right of marriage to another group over the legal age of marriage that you degrade it. The one bit of truth you spoke is the fact that what has really degraded the institution of marriage is the ease with which you can get a divorce. Yes, divorce is sometimes necessary, but do not use your opinions on divorce to stop me from marrying the man I want to spend the rest of my life with simply because you think I will file for a divorce at some point down the road. I am old enough to know what a commitment is, and I am old enough to know what love is, and love is more than just an emotion. Love is when you take care of the house so that it does not fall into disrepair. Love is when you are there to nurse your spouse and your children or grandchildren through an illness. Love is when you do whatever it takes to make sure that your family is protected from people who would attempt to tear you apart. That is whaqt we are fighting for. The SAME PROTECTIONS for our families under the law of the United States of America that your family has. We are not, as so many7 of the NOM maouthpieces have spewed over the airwaves, fighting for "special rights.: If those rights are "special" it is because they are so limited due to misinformation, superstition, and mistranslations of G-d's word. And when even children can recognize that two people love each other and want the same things for their families that every other family has, that makes a very clear case that Olsen, Boies, and the rest of the team fighting to get rid of this travesty known as Prop H8, are on the right side. The same side Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers would have been on.

  • 47. Patrick  |  June 17, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Everybody knows that white schools are the best ways to educate children. By allowing black children to attend white school destroys the very essence of that white education. It destroys the whole institute of education and cheapens it for the white kids attending that white school!

    Please "Goerge" the reason no factual, measurable, scientific evidence was produced showing that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cheapen it, or ruin it for opposite-sex married couples, or the children thereof, is that it doesn't exist.

    Saying that the sky is purple doesn't make it so. "It's wrong because Bob said so," it's a valid court case and isn't evidence of anything. Even the judge stated that if they have 7 million people or more to provide evidence as to why same-sex marriage will ruin anything, even the "institution of marriage" then why didn't the proponents of Prop 8 bring them forward?

    I guess in your twisted world, if all the heterosexuals get to have free ice-cream, and the homosexuals are denied free ice-cream—now allowing homosexuals to have free ice-cream as well ruins it for everybody…

    Well, grow up already. You're not 12, and neither are we.

  • 48. Goerge  |  June 18, 2010 at 12:22 am

    Trying to equate gay rights and Black civil rights is just silly; a pathetic attempt to use existing law to defend an issue for which it was unintended.

    Listen carefully: When Blacks were denied marriage, it was a matter of equal protection: Black men were denied the right to marry women that white men were allowed to marry (same argument for women). Gay men are not being denied the rights that straight men have: every gay man is entitled to marry the same women that straight men are. There is no discrimination. Legalizing interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage; it merely allowed everyone to participate equally.

    Gay people have the same rights as straight people. If you want to get married and have kids, you are entitled to get married and have them. If you choose to put such great emphasis on your desire to have sex with people of the same sex, then you have made the choice to not get married and have kids. Surely many men/women have same lustful sexual urges and decide to forego them so that they can get married and have kids.

    For those of you who think the issue is about denial of a certain group the right to marry who they love, know that the law denies everyone the right to marry the ones they love in certain circumstances: you can’t marry someone who is already married; you can’t marry your child, or other close relatives, you can’t marry your dog. And you can’t marry someone of the same sex; because it is not a marriage at all.

    The state has a legitimate interest in keeping biological moms and dads together to take care of their kids: a loving, stable mother/father/child is society’s ideal arrangement. It assures that kids have their moms and dads (not the state), assures that moms and dads take on the responsibility (not the state) to raise the kids. Married male-female couples encourage more marriages: consider how many people feel the pressure to get married because their friends do; and conversely, how many people forego marriage (consider inner-city men/women) because it is not part of the culture. In the latter circumstance, what results is an abundance of children born without fathers in the household, poverty of single-mother households, and reliance on government support.

    The state’s interest in the marriage of people who cannot procreate is not as strong an interest: if there aren’t any kids, people can get together and break-up as they do prior to marriage without any adverse effects on the state. The state’s interest in the marriage of non-procreating couples is really to foster a culture for procreating couples to get married, which, incidentally, non-procreating gay couples do not do. The marriage of gay couples discourages marriages for procreation; it says that it doesn’t matter whether you get married to have kids because people who can obviously not procreate can get married.

  • 49. rf  |  June 18, 2010 at 12:55 am

    George, you are obviously a well reasoned constitutional scholar with a full and impressive background in sociology and government. If only Cooper had consulted you on this case, he could have come back with something more concrete than 'I don't know'.

  • 50. fiona64  |  June 18, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Children and dogs are unable to consent, George. We are talking about consenting adults here, not whatever other BS you choose to bring up.

    Get counseling. You are sick.


  • 51. fiona64  |  June 18, 2010 at 1:29 am

    George wrote: The state’s interest in the marriage of non-procreating couples is really to foster a culture for procreating couples to get married, which, incidentally, non-procreating gay couples do not do.

    What is your source for this assertion, George, other than your ignorant backside?

    The reason I ask is that several people right here on this board have talked about how much they recommitted to their own marriages after attending a same-sex wedding. I was one of them.

    Get help, George. Seriously.

  • 52. Dave  |  June 17, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Are the pro-prop8 supporters the dumbest people alive? Unlike atty Charles Cooper (and George up above), I will offer into evidence these facts:

    a) procreation does not require marriage
    b) marriage does not require procreation
    c) procreation does not require M/F intimacy: test tubes, in vitro, even a turkey baster and plastic cup will suffice
    d) ergo, procreation occurs independently of marriage
    e) and it therefore follows that marriage occurs independently of procreation
    f) and finally, permitting same sex marriage has no effect on procreation or propagation of the species, which is (or should be) self-evident (unlike Cooper's arguments).

    Your Honor, I submit that George, Charles Cooper and his team, and the pro-Prop8 people are even dumber than George W. Bush. My evidence is given above.

  • 53. fiona64  |  June 18, 2010 at 1:32 am

    The biggest thing is that these imbeciles (and I do not use the word lightly) conflate procreation (an act of biology) with child-rearing — which is totally different. Anyone can rear a child and do an excellent job of it, whether the child is biologically theirs or not. OTOH, any two idiots with functioning gonads can (and do) procreate.

    I don't see any of these yobs out campaigning against adoption, for instance. Nor do I see them campaigning to make divorce illegal, make it unlawful for the postfertile or infertile to wed, or insisting that marriages be judicially annulled after a certain period if no children are forthcoming.

    George is trying to disguise his bigotry under the rubric of "think of the children" — just like the rest of the Prop H8ers — and thinks we are all too stupid to see it.

    What a pitiful little man.

  • 54. Alan E.  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Hi everyone. I had a great time yesterday at the trial. This was indeed a once in a lifetime event. Thanks to Kathleen for providing the final push. The whole day was absolutely gorgeous outside. The rally was great first thing in the morning. Many speakers but only a few couples. My husband couldnt make it, but he dollowedthe liveblogs all day. The crew performed about 10 minutes of testimony. Later on, Danny (met him for the first time at lunch) from the Courage Campaign had a crew of 5 or 6 give a unique performance dramatizing some of the testimony. I got some of it on video, but my boss called and interrupted it. Molly from Marriage Equality USA (
    ) has a fantastic voice and a cheerful attitude. She was a fabulous MC.

    During the rally, I pulled John Ireland ( aside to be sure to thank him for his work. He was surprised when I told him that I had watched every hour of the reenactment. Even if you watched only 5 minutes, please be sure to send the crew a message on their site. They will greatly appreciate it.

    After the rally, I wasn't sure if I was going to get in the courtroom, let alone where it was located (another thanks to John Ireland for filling me in). When I got to the 19th floor, the line to get into the overflow room was all the way down the hall. While waiting, we floated the idea of spreading a Twitter rumor saying the trial was moving to another building to try and get people to leave the line. Luckily they opened another overflow room.

    While in line, I met an attorney named Robert Michitarian who headed up the history museum that was at 18th and Castro for 9 months. Look more from them soon! I'll probably be helping them out in whatever fashion I can.

    The people were in the same room, so it was a bit trippy to see 2 Olsens, 2 Boieses, 2 Walkers, etc., especially since I have only seen the actors play the parts. The screens in the room were set up exactly like they were on the reenactment. 3 video feeds at once.

    Most of what you read is what we saw on the screens. If you laughed or cried while reading, you can be sure people in the room (present company included) were doing the same. I don't think I could have been in the actual courtroom or else thy would kick me out for being too loud in the peanut gallery. It certainly was nice to be able to make comments during the proceedings. Rick, the one question Molly (marriage equality USA) and I had was were people laughing in the main courtroom too like the January trial?

    For lunch, I met Danny for the first time from Courage Campaign. Great hire there and really nice guy. The afternoon seemed like naptime while trying to follow Cooper's logic. Very strategic having him right after lunch. I wanted to throw my coffee cup at the screen so many times, it was better off that I threw it on the trash after a personal check.

    Nothing can explain the feelings while watching Ted Olsen at the end.
    You read it, I watched it, we all cheered!

    As I walked toward the elevators after the end, the line for the elevators was way too long for my taste. Another observer, this sweet older gentleman named Marvin, and I walked down 3 flights to take an alternative elevator. What he said summed up the day perfectly. "This was just like group therapy, just what we needed."

    Outside, many of the people I had met recapped the afternoon outside.
    We laughed about "channeling" and "irresponsible procreation." I could only hope that Walker and whatever judges are presiding in the future would be thinking about what we were conversing about as we walked to the location of the press conference. Unfortunately, I had to leave.
    My husband was picking me up so we could visit with friends. Part of me wishes I would have gone to get margaritas with Molly and the rest of the crowd.

    At the end of the day, I feel great. I am glad to feel the embrace of Ted Olsen and his crew. If I was at the press conference, I would have certainly given him a hug. I hope everyone reading the live blogs can understand the energy felt in the rooms. Today was a great day, for me and for all Americans. I feel more American already.

    Alan Eckert
    Married on November 3, 2008

    PS I made sure to wear the gayest shirt I own. The rest of the crowd must be among the best and most diversely dressed crowd that court has seen.

  • 55. fiona64  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:34 am

    I know Marvin! We met at a No on 8 rally; he is one of the nicest guys ever. So great that he was at the closing arguments. πŸ™‚

    Thanks for the report, Alan!


  • 56. Kathleen  |  June 17, 2010 at 4:47 am


    Thank you so much for telling us about your experience.

    I could feel the energy and excitement, even just sitting here by myself, in my living room, laptop in lap, so I can only imagine what it must have been like all together there, witnessing such an historical event. I'm so glad you went; you must know you were representing so many of us here at P8TT.

    Love and Hugs,

  • 57. Alan E.  |  June 17, 2010 at 1:29 am

    PPS I typed this out on my iphone then emailed it to myself to post. Please excuse the mistypes (dollowedthe = followed the)

  • 58. Jeremy Braud  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Official transcript now available

  • 59. Papa Foma  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:48 am

    I was there when Felyx went into spasms. We all had tears of laughter at the dramatic reenactment. I almost felt sorry for Cooper — I couldn't help feeling he drew the short straw in trying to defend the impossible position — "irresponsible procreation" INDEED!

  • 60. Alan E.  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:50 am

    I was surprised that Andy Pugno didn't argue up there, but I guess he would rather play the spin game so he can look better for his campaign. Would have been nice to tear him a new one.

  • 61. Mark M.  |  June 17, 2010 at 2:51 am

    My husband and I are so over joyed by the love and support from our legal team and from each and everyone of you here.
    It’s so easy to even in this day and age to feel ‘alone’, but sharing this historic time with all of you has made us realize we are NOT alone.
    Our children will one day look back on this as a true turning point in history.
    Thank you one and all!!!
    Mark and Robert (together 27 yrs and counting)
    Seattle, WA

  • 62. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 3:05 am

    I have just received a very nice response from Jeremy Goldman of our legal team. Yes, folks, it is okay for us to send emails to them and let them know how much we appreciate them being on the right side of history and civil rights by emailing them or writing snail mail letters to send to their offices. And yes, when I sent the email, I sent it at one time to all four email addresses that are listed on the trial paperwork. They really do appreciate hearing from us, and they will write back.

  • 63. James Tuttle  |  June 17, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Where can I find their e-mails, Richard?

  • 64. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 17, 2010 at 5:45 am

    I will still answer for those who may not have yet been able to find them. The emails for the lawyers are listed on the page where they list everybody involved on the Plaintiffs' response to the Questions posed by Judge Walker. I don't remember the scribd link, but I know that Kathleen posted that on at least one of the previous threads, plus, it is offered up in the blog post Julia did after Kathleen posted comments with the documents.
    As far as an easy yet nice idea, I am just glad I can be of some help. After all, this case will affect all of us, so we have to pull together on this.

  • 65. James Tuttle  |  June 17, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Whoops…after some snooping, I found them. I wroite them a nice email too. Thanks for such a easy yet good idea, Richard.

  • 66. Dave P.  |  June 17, 2010 at 5:52 am

    HI all,

    After work today I'm going to attend the Equality California social mixer at Google Headquarters in Mountain View CA, just down the street from my office. I've never been to one of these before but I'm looking forward to meeting some folks and I'm sure there will be lots of conversaion about the trial and all the events of the past few days. Anybody else going?

  • 67. Alan E.  |  June 18, 2010 at 1:39 am

    The new gay agenda: Channeling Straight People To Leave Their Marriages and Forcing Upon Them Irresponsible Procreation

  • 68. Alan E.  |  June 18, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Weird. It insert this comment up a few spots even though it came after the ones below it.

  • 69. John  |  June 18, 2010 at 3:43 am

    The case is getting so much buzz. I am so excited to see that. With more people actually reading and understanding, I finally feel like things will start to make sense for people who have just refused to believe that marriage is a right entitled to all Americans.

    Some cool buzz here:…. I really liked the article – I'd say check it out if you want something lighter to read:]

  • 70. James Tuttle  |  June 18, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Well those are some depressing statistics above. But in any case, what the hell does this have to do with marriage? George, this site is for loving people who care about each others interests and want to contribute positively to the dialogue. For the many months I have been participating in these comments and reading the articles, you are the only dissenting and unwelcome person here. Please spread your vitriol elsewhere. I have enough hatred swirling around me in other arenas, I don't want to come here and read your tripe.

  • 71. fiona64  |  June 18, 2010 at 5:57 am

    To be fair … George is one of several people who were banned from the site for hate speech (that's why he misspells his name … he apparently thinks that no one at Courage Campaign is paying attention). We had Mark (well-known to the folks at SacBee as a bigot … he was eventually banned there for hate speech as well), "Kay" (who we managed to figure out was a high school boy pretending to be an adult female), Georgie-Porgie here, and someone calling themselves Marcella. There may have been others that I've left out.

    ::shrug:: When the history books write about this, Georgie-Porgie and his ilk are going to be awfully embarrassed at how they are perceived. I rather anticipate that it will be with the same kind of horror presently reserved for folks like the Ku Klux Klan.


  • 72. James Tuttle  |  June 18, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Fiona =-)

  • 73. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 18, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Let's not forget about Melissa, aka Melostit" that kept getting Ronnie upset, as well as getting a few others of us upset.

  • 74. James Tuttle  |  June 18, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Shoot..I meant my # 69 comment to be #75 comment. I meant about the HIV statistics.

  • 75. Tim & Mike Quade  |  June 18, 2010 at 5:28 am

    OMG what a F***HEAD…….I can't beleive that anyone with any
    education beyond grade school buys into the crap George spouts.

    Fiona, you are a treasure like straight gandma….xxx.s & oo's

  • 76. fiona64  |  June 18, 2010 at 6:45 am

    PS to Georgie-porgie:

    Since you have now moved away from your lame "marriage is for breeding" argument to "gay people are icky because of HIV/AIDS," I hasten to point out that the population with the LOWEST incident of HIV/AIDS is lesbians.

    Kind of blows your whole theory out of the water.

    Fiona (who is constantly amazed at how obsessed the anti-gay bigots are with what their GLBT neighbors get up to in the bedroom — as though straight couples don't do all of the same acts, or ever get HIV/AIDS)

  • 77. Goerge  |  June 21, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Playing games with facts and figures is part of how the homosexual agenda progresses. E.g., I cite a CDC article printed in 2010 about the huge # of HIV cases in men who have gay sex (nearly half of people living with HIV in the US as of 2006), and in reply, instead of addressing the data, people attack the dates on the article or change the subject. Several here are good at ad hominem attacks, calling me names and accusing me of hate speach, whereas, they are the only ones express hatred here.

    I'll refrain from being drawn further into the red herring discussion of the dates of the research cited, and come back to the original point of the article that I cited: if you want to talk about the supposed stupidity of those of us who support marriage between men and women, you might want to evaluate the actions of those who continue to have unprotected sex in the age of HIV. This isn't about ickyness; it's about the tendency to engage in risky behavior despite the known consequences.

  • 78. fiona64  |  June 21, 2010 at 1:40 am

    George, why don't you take your hate speech somewhere else? We get it. You're a misogynistic homophobe who thinks that gay relationships are inferior. You think that only gay people have HIV/AIDS. You don't care about straight people who engage in the EXACT SAME BEHAVIORS, because they don't fit into your anti-gay rhetoric.

    Just get lost, okay?

  • 79. Goerge  |  June 21, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Two final words from me until I signoff until the Judge hands down his decision:

    1. Bob Dylan was a self-promoter who wrote music to make money and become famous; he found a market in American idealistic youth, but wasn't the liberal that his lyrics might lead one to believe. He's a profiteer who reinvented himself as needed to sell records to a gullible public (a gifted songwriter nonetheless).

    2. With respect to the Prop 8 trial, Cooper might be an inarticulate arguer, but he believes that this case should be decided on the papers; the emotional nonsense testimony paraded in front of the judge was unnecessary to decide the case. No point in getting dragged into an red herring factual argument when the case is clear as a matter of law.

    See you at decision time where the (gay) Judge Walker will find in favor of plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit will affirm, and the US Supreme Court will yet again reverse the nutty 9th Circuit, just like it did unanimously last week.


  • 80. fiona64  |  June 21, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Brief translation of George's comments:

    ::chanted with fingers stuck in ears::

    Nahnahnah can't hear you. Hate facts. Hate logic. Hate progress. Hate GLBT people. I'm a good Christian white man who should be in charge and hates losing my hegemony.

    There. Fixed it for you.


  • 81. Ronnie  |  November 6, 2010 at 8:26 am

    OMG….I can't believe I missed an entire thread flooded by the….

    Guy Envying Our Righteous Gay Energy….

    aka.,..George, the Fascist un-American pig….you guys did an awesome job….he/she/it…is so not worth my time…so I will just applaud you guys….<3…Ronnie

  • 82. Get the words out!! ̵&hellip  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    […] Prop 8 Trial Tracker is asking for folks to do live and taped reenactments of the Trial Testimony, including closing arguments. […]

  • 83. Bob  |  February 28, 2011 at 6:02 am

    woot woot ,,, the timing is perfect for getting this testimony out to the public……right on

  • 84. car upholstery repair&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Tire ratings guide…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

  • 85. Lose Chest Fat Guys&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Mens Health and Fitness…

    […]just below, are some totally unconnected sites to ours, nonetheless, they are definitely worth checking out[…]…

  • 86. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Get it…

    […]Here is another great site[…]…

  • 87. Oatmeal Diet&hellip  |  September 2, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Oatmeal Diet…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

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