Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

A morning cuppa Prop 8

Background Daily Summary NOM Tour Tracker Trial analysis

Overturned sign from Jason Cohen
The new and improved Yes on 8 sign, from Jason Cohen

by Adam Bink

The morning after. Ah, woke up with a smile today. How about you?

Here’s what I’m seeing around and about:

  • First, if you missed yesterday’s coverage here at (coverage that has this space as the #1 Google search engine result for “Prop 8 trial” and #3 for “Prop 8”!), I’ve got a roundup for you. We’ve got my initial announcement along with key graphs from the decision, early head-exploding reaction from NOM, and live-blogging the AFER presser;  attorney Brian Devine’s legal analysis; my roundup of more legal analysis, NOM’s livechat FAIL, Obama WH reaction, and photos from rallies in SF; videos galore including last night’s Maddow episode; and Maggie channeling the Cold War. Peruse away.
  • Speaking of Maggie, here’s her debating Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry (a co-sponsor of on Anderson Cooper last night.


“The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time — he felt it was divisive and mean spirited,” he said, adding that Obama believes that governing marriage is “an issue for the states.”

Ask Obama to support full marriage equality.

  • I must say, I’m having some fun with NOM’s site, as they have the Twitter auto-feed set to Prop8, which means they have tweets celebrating the Prop 8 decision and coverage from gay journalists like Michael Lavers alongside angry denunciations from Maggie. Whoops. (Click to view larger)
  • NOMsite

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians.

The Chronicle editorial was pretty good, although not as eloquent, and in the same edition as this garbage they printed from Maggie calling Walker “biased” and warning of the Red Gay Menace.

  • Tonight’s NOM event is in St. Louis circa 6 PM Central time. And I bet it’s going to be a doozy. Given Brian’s failure to show up for his own live chat, and Maggie’s warning of The Gay Soviets coming to re-educate your kids, there’s plenty for our Trackers to ask them about. So it’s about time for another question period. What would you ask NOM tonight?


  • 1. Dave in ME  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:21 am

    I can't get enough of these posts and comments!!


  • 2. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Me neither. I need many more.

  • 3. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:22 am

    What a glorious day it is in California!!

  • 4. ChrisQ  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:24 am

    What will you do if the Prop 8 case gets to the SCOTUS and your side does not prevail?

  • 5. Jeff  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:47 am

    My opinion: I'm not concerned. It would be great if "our" side prevails at SCOTUS, but if not, the future still looks very, very favorable relative to marriage equality. If SCOTUS overturns Walker's ruling, more individual states, over time, will pass it. And then, after Alabama finally passes it, it'll be all 50.

  • 6. PamC  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:15 am

    I agree; time and justice for all is on our side. But I have high hopes due to the 80 findings of fact and the citations to previous Kennedy rulings!

  • 7. Rachael J.  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:57 am

    "Our side"??? Aren't we ALL Americans?? 50 years ago I couldn't marry my fiance because he's not white, now I can, and I think everyone should be able to marry whomever they like. There is no side here!

  • 8. Dave P.  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:34 am

    YEAH! Rachel gets it! Are you listening to her, ChrisQ?

  • 9. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Wrong question, ChrisQ, what will you use for evidence to overturn Walker's ruling?

  • 10. Anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Slightly wrong question Bolt. The evidence in the case has all been submitted. In appeals, no new evidence, just a look at the findings of law. The question is now what basis in LAW is there to overturn Walker's ruling?

  • 11. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:54 am

    In my continuing commitment to legal education ;-)…

    Facts are 'found'
    EX: Walker found that Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law.

    Conclusions of law are 'held'
    Ex: Walker held that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

    The use of 'held' or 'holdings' is often awkward, to you'll frequently see the phrase "conclusion(s) of law" used in its place.

    Not that I expect anyone to care… but there it is.

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    @ Kathleen–I care, and I appreciate this newest lesson in the law.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:16 am

    ChrisQ, even if SCOTUS doesn't uphold Walker's ruling, that doesn't mean that individual states, or the federal government can't pass laws extending marriage equality to all.

    It's just a matter of time.

  • 14. RebeccaRGB  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:39 am

    @PamC Not to mention a juicy nugget from a previous Scalia ruling!

  • 15. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:22 am

    @ ChrisQ: If you really want to look at what Prop H8 did, our side is actualy your side. You see, Prop H8 put the government into our personal affairs in a way that was also a violation of privacy. This means that the government was also meddling in YOUR personal affairs. Therefore, when WE win, YOU win.

  • 16. Karen  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:02 am

    If you mean the marriage equality side not prevailing then I would be sad Then keep educating people. We are really so close now and the more visible we are, the more real we are the harder it is for the other side to make us seem sooo scary.

  • 17. Tigger  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Upholding Prop H8 and Doma by the SCOTUS, while unfortunate, will not kill the future of gar marriage. Public opinion is shifting….FAST. That means that congress could repeal Doma on its own. CA could repeal Prop 8 on its own.

    As long as one state has legal gay marriage and doma is gone..there is no argument for not applying full faith and credit to that states marriage laws. Thus legal marriage nationwide for all.

    As generations pass, people realize that this is a future non-issue. Your only hope is a Fed Const Amend which as time passes is even less likely.

    H8ters days are numbered unless you can get that Fed Const Amend passed… and good luck on that one.

  • 18. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    And even the federal constitutional amendment could get repealed by a later amendment. It happened with the Volsted Act.

  • 19. Alan E.  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Subscribe me! I can't get enough =)

  • 20. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:22 am

    How did I miss this post? Arrrgg.

  • 21. James Sweet  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:27 am

    The president does oppose same sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples,”

    Heh, nice one.

    I don't think we should have a black president, but I support equality for African-Americans! Oh wait, that's racist, stupid, and self-contradictory…. nevermind.

  • 22. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:32 am

    I can completely understand someone being personally opposed to a given thing, but not wanting it to be unlawful. I have plenty of pro-choice friends who would never have an abortion themselves but support the right of others to do so.

    I do not see this position as contradictory. Pres. Obama is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but he is NOT opposed to states deciding for themselves who is permitted to get married. He obviously figures that it's none of his business.


  • 23. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:47 am


    Yes, I agree that Obama is struggling with a personal conflict–he personally does not condone SSM, but from a Constitutional standpoint, he can't support denying us our Fundamental Rights.

    Can the President of the United States straddle that sort of fence? It seems to me that he has no choice but to support the upholding of the Constitution.

  • 24. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:52 am

    I'm sorry, but i have to disagree. The choice of words here implies more than just a personal dislike. "The president does oppose same sex marriage" reads more "The Executive Branch does plan to veto any attempt to legitimize same sex marriage" and less like "Mr. Obama personally disagrees with the need for same sex marriage."

    If the message came directly from the President himself, instead of a White House spokesperson, spoken in yhe first person and not third… then it would sound less official and more personal.


  • 25. Bryan  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Very good point, Fiona. When I was younger, I remember asking my mom if she thought abortion should be legal. She said that she would never have an abortion, but that she wanted it to be a legal option for other women.

  • 26. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:11 am

    @Linda, didn't Obama have to say when he took his oath of office "To Preserve and defend the Constituition of the United States?" Well this was jsut judged unconstituitional so I hope he defends it.

  • 27. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Straight Grandmother, Pres. Obama went on the record with his opposition to Prop 8 quite a while ago:


  • 28. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Another article:


  • 29. paul  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Fiona…I think you're smart and on target most of the time. However, this time I have to remind you that just as some of your friends might oppose abortion for themselves (self-directed), yet approve of a woman's right to choose…
    Obama's disapproval of SSM isn't self-directed…it's outwardly directed towards LGBT. If Obama doesn't want to partake of SSM, good for him. Supporting bigotry that makes it wrong for the rest of us to partake in SSM is not good for him…or us !

  • 30. Charles  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:17 am

    not necessarily. I understand your point of it being a self contradicting statement but I believe what the quoter was trying to convey is that it's the president's personal belief that people of the same gender should not marry but since he is the president he's supporting the equality for all. At least that's what I took from it I may be wrong, but I think even though he dose not support gay marriage but is willing to put his personal beliefs aside for the better of the country makes him a better president than we've had in a long while.

  • 31. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:26 am

    The only problem with this whole thing of Obama's personal views vs his duty to uphold the Constitution is this: he is the President of the United States. In my view, the day he took that oath of office is the day he subjucated his personal views to the standards required to uphold the Constitution. He cannot speak as a private citizen when acting as the President. He needs to be firm about his commitment to upholding the Constitution. Period.

  • 32. Roger  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Linda is quite right.

    There is a story told of President Lincoln's reply to a couple of pro-slavery lobbyists who had come to appeal to him personally —

    "Gentlemen, as President I have no eyes to see with but constitutional eyes. Therefore, gentlemen, I do not see you."

  • 33. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Question for Maggie: Please cite, without using rhetoric, your reasons for believing that a strict Constitutional interpretation of the law by a Republican judge is the same as a "Soviet takeover of the government." Legal opinions, not religious, okay?


  • 34. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:15 am


  • 35. lifeintheboomerlane  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:32 am


  • 36. Owen  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:47 am

    I loved watching Andy Cooper just tear Maggie to shreds.

    He's usually very restrained with people like Maggie, Tony Perkins, and Brian Brown, but he just couldn't help destroy her "logic" that was completely shot down by a judge yesterday.

  • 37. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Luv luv luv the sign, and subscribing

  • 38. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:58 am

    I defiantly woke up with a smile…& it must of made my dog happy because he was a bouncing & licking lunatic…lol

    What would I ask NOM?

    What gives you the right to try to control other people's personal lives based on your own religious beliefs violating their Constitutional rights?

    Maggie this isn't your country, its EVERYBODY'S country….We the people, NOT we the Heterosexual anti-gays only. Get over it & "QUIT YOUR BITCHING!!!"

  • 39. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Well, I've tried to craft a question is such a way that BS or Maggie would deign to answer it; but alas, I just can't be that illogical.

    What's the point of asking them anything? They refuse to consider anything that is in contradiction to their illusions. That really leaves us with nothing to discuss.

  • 40. David  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Hey Maggie,
    Why are you wearing red and black?
    Were your white sheet and hood at the cleaners?

  • 41. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Notice how Mags wasn't even trying to give Evan the chance to complete his replies to Anderson Cooper? How rude! And yet she wants Anderson to allow her to finish spouting her drivel? Of all the unmitigated gall and chutzpah!!!

  • 42. PamC  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:17 am

    AND she was speaking in anger, blatantly seizing the stage (storming?) and trying to get in the last repetitive word. Rude and a sore loser.

  • 43. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

    …and trying hard not to actually answer the questions – just continuing to try to spout her talking points.

    I think I have to go with Linda above – what's the point of asking them anything? We already know everything we need to know about them.

    It's time to just hasten their advance into the dustbin of history, just as fast as we can.

  • 44. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:12 am

    I really need to start clicking the boxes before I start typing my comments.

  • 45. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:24 am

    LOL. I've had to train myself to do that.

    Can't tell you the number of times I've started a comment, with the intention of subscribing and get distracted by the end of checking for typos, etc. and then forget to subscribe!

  • 46. Ryan Blazer  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I dedicate this song to the following individuals & organizations: Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, NOM, Carrie Prejean, Andy Pugno, Charles Cooper, Dennis Hollingsworth,, Yes on 8, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Tom McClintock, Knights of Columbus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Grossmont Union High School District, & anyone else who believes WE are 2nd class citizens. FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!

    [youtube =]

    Look inside, look inside your tiny mind
    and look a bit harder
    cause we're so uninspired
    so sick and tired
    of all the hatred you harbor
    so you say it's not okay to be gay
    well I think you're just evil
    you're just some racist who can't tie my laces
    you're point of view is not legal
    Fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause we hate what you do
    and we hate your whole crew
    so please don't stay in touch
    fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause your words don't translate
    and it's getting quite late
    so please don't stay in touch
    do you get, do you get a little kick out of being small-minded?
    you want to be like your father
    it's approval you're after
    well that's not how you'll find it
    do you, do you really enjoy living a life that's so hateful
    cause there's a hole where your soul should be
    you're losing control of it
    and it's really distasteful
    Fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause we hate what you do
    and we hate your whole crew
    so please don't stay in touch
    fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause your words don't translate
    and it's getting quite late
    so please don't stay in touch
    Look inside, look inside your tiny mind
    and look a bit harder
    cause we're so uninspired
    so sick and tired
    of all the hatred you harbor
    Fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause we hate what you do
    and we hate your whole crew
    so please don't stay in touch
    fuck you, fuck you very very much
    cause your words don't translate
    and it's getting quite late
    so please don't stay in touch

  • 47. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Cool song. Maggie, the NOM, and all of it's sexist, homophobic, "religious" supporters are a bunch of assholes!

  • 48. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Great lyrics! Very apropos today 🙂


  • 49. RebeccaRGB  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Also Louis! Hi Louis!

  • 50. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Ahhh this Straight Grandmother enjoyed every single F You in the song. Not a word i throw around lightly but today, the second day of validation for my family, I sang right along with the song. And I was thinking of all of thos A** Holes who have shown up for Brian Brown's tour of hate. It was a pretty song BTW.

  • 51. Steve Rosenberger  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:38 am

    The perfect anthem for today!

  • 52. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:55 am

    🙂 From us to you NOM, Louis, Maggs.

    Bless your hearts.


  • 53. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Okay, I did a time count to see if poor Maggie got short-changed as she implied.

    Evan= a little under 4 minutes of interview time
    Maggie= a little under 6 minutes of interview time

    My question: Do the NOM folks believe that they should be required to be able to defend their position in a court of law?

  • 54. Andrew  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Recent article concerning Obama and his next step.


    “He’s got to show his cards,” said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. “Do you support one San Francisco judge in imposing his view of marriage on the rest of the country or not?… Anyone who just looks at this from an objective point of view realizes the president’s position is untenable.”

    “He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states,” said the Obama aide, who asked not to be named.

    “When President Bill Clinton — the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law — has now called for overturning it, and supports freedom to marry, joined by people like Cindy McCain and Laura Bush, President Obama needs to get on the right side of this cause of justice,” [Evan] Wolfson [of Freedom to Marry] said.


  • 55. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Yeah – he's just trying to use this to stir up shit for the elections, both 2010 and 2012.

    Nothing like fear and hatred to get the nombies and their nomo enablers out to the polls.

  • 56. John B.  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:29 am

    I would ask NOM whether it bothered them that Anderson Cooper kept calling Maggie "Miss Gallagher". What, she isn't married??? Oh that's right, she married a man but hasn't taken his name. How does THAT support "traditional marriage"?

  • 57. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Also, she never has him with her, never walks the requisite 3 paces behind and one pace to the left, nor does she ever wear her wedding ring. Yet, she is the "poster child" for "traditional marriage"? Also, she is forgetting that even after the SCOTUS made marriages like hers legal, three-fourths of the population still did not want it. Should we go back now and vote on her marriage?

  • 58. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Richard she does not wear her wedding ring because she had gained weight since the wedding and it no longer fits. That is my guess. I don't wear mine either as I was 98lbs when I got married (really!), oh so many years ago. I remember when I had my first child just before giving birth I was a wopping 121lbs. I'm not obease by any stretch of the imagination but I can't wear my wedding ring, I bet that is why Maggie doesn't either.

  • 59. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:58 am

    How true… And do they have children?

    If not, then how dare she stay married!

  • 60. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    @ JonT: I think Mags did it backward–got the child first, then the hubby.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:50 am

    I thinking he's saying "Ms Gallagher."

  • 62. Roger  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:57 am

    It shouldn't have, John. There is an old tradition in show business that an actress or singer, married or otherwise, who uses her maiden name is given the title "Miss". (It originated in the days when respectable married women did not appear on stage, but it later came to have overtones of "she is really married to her art..")

    To take an Oz example, Joan Sutherland's press releases always referred to her as "Miss Sutherland" and not as "Mrs Bonynge", her married name.

    I'm not sure if Mr Cooper is aware of it, but if he is, the deliberate "Miss" rather than "Ms" was a subtle put-down, suggesting that Maggie is not an expert or a scholar (as Blankenhorn described her in his evidence) but merely a performer. Which would sum her up pretty well, IMHO.

  • 63. Chad  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Maggie's closing comments:

    “Evan you’re entitled your view but you’re not entitled to make up my view. That isn’t my view, thank you.”

    Yet isn't she "making up" my view by deciding whether or not I can get married?

    It smells like hypocrisy.

  • 64. Alexander  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Link to the NYT Editorial is busted…….

  • 65. Ed  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Comic relief….thought ya'll might enjoy this one….

    From the AFA….

    I mean really???


  • 66. Alexander  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Oh, that's rich. "Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual." Shouldn't a practicing heterosexual need to recuse him/herself as well? Or maybe it's any judge who's married who would need to be recused, since this trial is ostensibly about marriage?

    I like how he asserts that "according to the 10th Amendment, that establishing marriage policy is none of the federal government’s business" and then two sentences later brings up the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

    "reprehensible expression of judicial activism and tyranny" … "indulgence in sexually aberrant behavior" … "blatant judicial tyranny" … "out-of-control judges" … "gross breaches of their oath of office"

    Fearmonger much? Poor Chicken Little.

  • 67. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:04 am

    I would like to state once again that I was swimming laps in an outdoor pool yesterday when the ruling came down. I was actually doing backstroke at that time and pointedly looking at the sky.

    I can assure everyone that the sky showed NO sign of falling. Hard to believe, I know!

  • 68. Joel  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    According to their logic, the only acceptable Judge would have been a castrated asexual. According to their rhetoric, the only acceptable judge would have been a Southern Baptist minister.

  • 69. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Can any of them cite evidence presented in the trial that was overlooked or ignored?

    That would be my question, over and over again.

    "What evidence did your side present that was over-looked by Judge Walker?"

    Obviously they cannot argue their case judiciously; they can only appeal to emotions and fear. Their tools are not facts but fabrications. They despise the courtroom because there is no place for their bigotry and lies there. They have to defend their claims and give factual support for their views, and they cannot do that. All they can do is prey on the ignorance and fear of their followers. That's why they do not like to even allow the folks who are interviewing them to complete questions or make reference to facts. They don't want 'their people' to hear any reasoned argument questioning their (NOM, AFA) position. Their only hope is the continued ignorance of their followers.

    Can their 'truth' not withstand scrutiny?

  • 70. PamC  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:21 am

    "…they despise the courtroom.." absolutely! Because the lights are too bright in there! And all their ugly lies and distorted fear-mongering shows up clearly.

    She never answered AC re: why they lost the courtroom battle–kept going on about bias and such. But AC kept hammering home the FACT

  • 71. PamC  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:22 am

    (sorry; pushed enter too soon) FACTS that somehow…didn't make an appearance to support their arguments…..?!?

  • 72. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Pffft…. You are obviously a Soviet activist; didn't you read the trial transcripts? The defense explicitly state that they don't need evidence.


  • 73. Adam G.  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Well, that's why this case is such an enormous blow to them. Walker spelled it out in plain, simple English, in black and white for everyone to read and realize: they've got nothin'. There are no facts on their side. All they have is smoke, mirrors, and fear – and he just swept that all away and said "Irrelevant to the law, folks."

    They're livid because he just took away their best scare tactics and demonstrated that their emperor of hate has been running around bareass for the last twenty-plus years. And they can't stand it.

  • 74. Alan E.  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Here is the email tey sent out (from AFA):

    Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker
    Contact your representative today and urge him to start impeachment proceedings
    August 5, 2010

    Dear Alan,

    Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

    In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.

    Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

    Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."

    In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

    What can be done?

    Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

    Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

    Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

    Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

    Take Action
    Email your representative today and urge him to launch impeachment proceedings against Judge Vaughn Walker for his outrageous ruling against natural marriage.

  • 75. l8r_g8r  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Yay! Let's impeach all judges who disagree. Or at least threaten them with impeachment so all the other judges are scared into agreeing with us!


  • 76. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Hm… Thanks for the news… I'm going to write to my representatives today — explicitly to ask them to block any attempts to impeach Walker.


  • 77. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Or, to put it in other words:

    "I don't WANNA live by the Constitution any more when it doesn't go the way I want it to! I wanna change the RULES so I WIN!!!"

    Yes, in fact we DO have a system of checks and balances, and this case is a perfect example of how it is supposed to work.

    I think my favorite thing out of all of this is the folks calling for a repeal of the 14th Amendment. Really?

  • 78. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Does anyone else find it curious that the word 'behavior' is given the British spelling? I couldn't find a high enough res copy of the Constitution online to see if that's how it's spelling in the original, but nearly every transcription uses the American spelling. If this IS the spelling in the original document, just another example of how these people don't see that society, culture, laws, evolve.

    My boyfriend's take on Maggie, Perkins, et al, freaking out is that this isn't about marriage; it isn't even necessarily just about gay people, per se. It's about the world changing around them, becoming some place they don't understand, in which they feel uncomfortable and even afraid, in which they are the ones marginalized, instead of being mainstream, and they have no power to stop the change.

  • 79. candi korris  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:54 am

    @ Kathleen

    I think Walker pegged it in his ruling when he talked about how the concept of marriage has changed (relatively recently) to make males and females equal partners in marriage. Previously… "Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain" (Walker, 62).

    I get the sense that a significant portion of folks screaming about "traditional marriage" are exactly the same sorts who support males as the sole leader of the household and who think that women belong solely in the home (or, if they work outside the home, they defer to their husbands' judgment).

    Our side argues that gender doesn't matter.

    Their side argues that gender absolutely matters… Gender absolutely matters to them because their men like their women subservient and the women like to see others equally burdened because it justifies them feeling miserable and oppressed in their own lives.

  • 80. Rachael J.  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Last time I checked there were 36 million Californians…I know that 7 million people voted, but that is HARDLY a majority of the state. Hopefully future elections will bring more young people out to vote and get rid of this heinous issue once and for all!

  • 81. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:31 am

    You mean they can't cope with finding out what we have dealt with our entire lives!?! Well, I guess they need to put on their big girl panties and their big boy boxers and learn to deal with it. I don't mean to sound cruel, but at the same time I sort of like seeing them get a taste of their own medicine for a change.

  • 82. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Let's impeach Scalia, Alito, and Thomas too!

  • 83. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:44 am

    @ Candi Korris: Then they should listen to Dolly Parton. After all, Dolly has been quoted as being in favor of SSM. Her reasoning? "Let them be as miserable as everyone else!" LOL

  • 84. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Candi, coverture was even more than what you cite.

    If a woman worked outside the home, she had to have express permission from her husband (or a male relative). If she was married, the income went to her husband. If she was single, she could keep the money — which would be roughly half of what a man doing the same job would earn. Widows did not need such permissions, FWIW.

    She had no rights to property, including the clothing on her back. She could not have a bank account in her own name. If she was raped, the crime was considered to be against her husband or her male relatives.

    It was not a pretty time.


  • 85. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I meant to add to my comment above, that my boyfriend summed up his thoughts on this by saying, "The world is becoming faaabulous, and it scares the shit out of them."

  • 86. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:37 am

    @Kathleen — very good! Faabulous, indeed!

  • 87. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I have written all of our states representatives and urged them to come forward with a public statement against any possible impeachment hearings on judge Walker.
    I reminded them that they all represent a state that only a year ago upheld basic human rights by approving our full domestic partnership law 'Everything but Marriage' Ref 71.
    I also reminded them this is an election year and they really don't want to be pissing off the good decent equality minded people of Washington state.
    We shall see how they respond.

  • 88. Tigger  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Let's threaten and bully all judges who don't agree with our point of view… <—-totally legal, i swear.

  • 89. Straight Dave  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    I'm not the least bit surprised that the original British spelling was used since it's a direct quote from the document. I've seen this in print before.

    An awesome hi-res Constitution Article III that's being referred to can be found here:
    "Behaviour" is very clear on the 2nd line of Article III.

    Bill Bryson's book "Made in America: An Informal History of the English Language in the United States" is a fun and informative read.

  • 90. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Thanks, Dave. I suspected as much. It just seems so symbolic of their whole attitude.

  • 91. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Yawn… big surprise 🙂

    'Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual.'

    Hmm. Of course then the obvious logic would dictate that if he were straight, then obviously he would be biased too, right? Even Maggs and BS Brown aren't stupid enough (yet) to use that logic…

    But then we're talking about fischer here…

    Do these people even think anymore? Or is it just a constant stream of mouth-diarrhea now?

  • 92. Adrenalin Tim  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Link to NYT editorial is broken.

  • 93. adambink  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Thanks, fixed.

  • 94. omini  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Hey everyone, off topic but still relevant to yesterdays ruling: if you havent heard already, Faux ne- ahem, sorry, Fox news is holding a poll asking what people think about the ruling. I think they were expecting a resounding "the ruling is bad, hetero marriage only" answer from their largly conservative audience, but we've struck back! Vote and take a look at the results yourself!

    After you vote, then go facebook, tweet, email, blog about, and forward this to as many people as you can, and then get them to do the same! Lets show fox that the "voice of the people" doesnt always agree with them! (as it stands now: 64% support the ruling, 31% oppose, 4% dont care about the ruling, but support the "right" of the people to vote on other's rights, and 1% didnt find an adequate answer in the poll and left a comment)

  • 95. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:06 am

    I peeked at a few of the comments on that site last night. One of the people was complaining that the poll was skewed because people who clearly are not regular readers of Faux FOX news were voting in their poll.

    I lol'd.

  • 96. jessica  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:05 am

    huh, that sounds something like the vote being skewed because the people/organizations who were putting up the money to support prop 8 weren't even citizens of CA!

  • 97. Alan E.  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:18 am

    How was it yesterday at the courthouse? Did you join the rally, too?

  • 98. Omini  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Oh, thanks for asking! In a word, it was magical.

    My group of friends and i were a bit lost for a while, so we only found the crowd minutes after the ruling dropped. The feelings of relief, celebration, excitement, and most of all, love were nearly tangible. After a few minutes of letting the reality of it all sink in, we were reminded that there were couples that needed to be married! We marched over to city hall, cars honking in support all the way, only to find that Walker had stayed the ruling. That didnt stop us though! the two couples went ahead and had symbolic marriages in the central rotunda, and it was a thing of beauty.

    I didnt get to go to the SF rally (parents and I both thought it was a little risky), but i went to one in Walnut Creek. It was the most fun i've had in a while, even though all we did was stand on a street corner with signs. Cars honked in support as they went by, and at one point, the intersection simply lit up with people honking and waving from their cars. Random people walking by saw us and decided to join in, and we were about 70 strong at one point!

    Oh, and one last thing. if any of you have watched "8: The Mormon Proposition" (which you should because its a brilliant documentary), you know the couple from the beginning of the movie, Spencer and Tyler. They were in SF with our crowd of about 70-100, and I got to meet them!

    Thanks everyone for your previous support! because of the success of this first "expedition" will allow me to join more rallies and celebrations in the future!

  • 99. Dave P.  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:48 am

    HI Omini!!

    Wonderful! So glad to hear from you and thanks for posting about your experience in SF. I started in the Castro and marched (more like dancing, really, with a flatbed truck in front of us and a big sound system blasting classic up-temp disco hits!) down Market to City Hall. If you were still there when the huge crowd arrived at about 6:30 we were in the same huge party. Anyway, great to hear that you hade such a good time and it's really encouraging to hear about Walnut Creek (for those who don't know, it's a rather conservative suburb east of SF). Well done, Omini!

  • 100. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Omni, I am so pleased that you were there. I am sure you will always remember this day.

  • 101. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:40 am

    And here in NC, when you mention Walnut Creek, it means you're going to a concert at one of the ampitheatres there.

  • 102. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Omini, thanks so much for telling us about your experience. I thought of you when I got back from downtown L.A. last night and hoped you'd check in here. I'm thrilled that it was such a positive experience for you. Big hugs, from a mom (and g'ma) in SoCal. xoxo

  • 103. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    I voted 🙂 Originally when I did, it was 43% supporting the ruling and 46% against. It's now 68% for, 27% against.


  • 104. Harriet Forman  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:45 am

    It feels soooo good to see our case affirmed by Judge Walker. The arguments our opponents have been making have NEVER made any sense, and it's great to see a real adult in a position of authority say out loud: The Emperor has no clothes!

    Now, I've gotten probably 10 solicitations for funds to support all the groups that worked for this success: is there one place to send a donation that will have the best outcome?

  • 105. MJFargo  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Questions for Maggie: Could you cite where in the judge's ruling that you think he was biased? Where he didn't use the facts presented to him by both sides? Which 'fact' did the judge include that wasn't presented to him by one of the sides? And could she–in the future–quit saying "one judge" when it was a whole bunch of people testifying before him that he used to make his ruling. Is there someone Maggie wished had testified that didn't? And why didn't they testify?

  • 106. Joel  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Off topic, way off topic, but kind of related. Here in NV there is a woman running for senate, Sharron Angle, who said, on TV, (paraphrase) "we want the media to ask us the questions we want to answer, so the news will be reported the way we want it to be reported." She was also quoted as saying something along the lines of "we need to stop worshipping the government. We need to ask G-d for our daily bread"

    Is there anything more frightening than a government that is a bastard child of a theocracy and fascism?

  • 107. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Sharron Angle scares the crap out of me.


  • 108. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Dude, it's obvious that repubs are desperate, but I can't imagine the NV repub voters are that stupid. She doesn't have anything to offer.

  • 109. Joel  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

    @bolt – Never underestimate the stupidity of cowboys. I mean, look who they voted in for governor here! Also, Reid and Angle are pretty much neck and neck in the polls right now, with Angle trailing by only four points.

    My mother-in-law loves her.

  • 110. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Oh Joel, I have heard of Sharon Angle. As fiona said, she's 'scary'. I cannot image what a hellhole this country would be come with people like her in positions of power.

    She likes to talk about stuff like starting an armed revolution against the federal government (exercise her 2nd amendment 'remedies') and other wacky, batshit insanity. She is definitely afraid of the media. That should be a warning right there.

    I will morn for Nevada if she ever gets voted into anything.

  • 111. Adam G.  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:40 am

    "Could you cite where in the judge’s ruling that you think he was biased?"

    Oh, ask these bigots and they'll give you their definition of bias: not seeing things the same way we do/not being on our side.

    It's not about proof or facts, for them. It's about what you belieeeeeeeeeeve. And Walker (in addition to being gay) doesn't belieeeeeeeeve what they belieeeeeeeve, so he's automatically biased.

  • 112. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    In addition to not even feeling it is relevant, Walker himself has never stated whether he is gay or not, so I really don't think any of us should make that assumption. And no, I really don't credit the one newspaper article that I saw in reference to this, especially since I don't remember seeing names of any of their sources for that information. I truly think this was another of NOM's smokescreen.

  • 113. Josh  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:57 am

    I'd ask them to stop misinforming the public about the role of the judicial branch in our government. I'd ask them to stop lying and bearing false witness.

  • 114. l8r_g8r  |  August 5, 2010 at 2:58 am

    The notice of appeal has been filed.

  • 115. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:02 am

    I would like to know this:

    Since the judge was legally bound to rule based only on the evidence and testimony presented in the trial, why didn't the Pro-8 side do a better job of presenting their case? Did NOM and the numerous other anti-equality groups in the country think he should base a court ruling on public opinion and religious doctrine rather than on the evidence and testimony presented in the trial?

  • 116. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Actually, that is EXACTLY how they thought he should have ruled. That is why is an "activist judge." he didn't rule the way they wanted him to; he ruled based on the law, the facts, and the Constitution.

  • 117. MJFargo  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Will we get to see the arguments for staying the decision as they're presented to the judge? Or will he release them after he decides?

  • 118. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Maggie — do you believe the 14th Amendment should apply to all U.S. citizens, or only to those you deem worthy?

  • 119. Lori  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Maggie – do you believe in the 14th Amendment?

  • 120. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Why should she? Even John McCain doesn't believe in it. After all, he is leading the charge to have at least the part about our birthright as citizens stripped from it. Once they start there, where will they end?

  • 121. Lawrence  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:25 am

    The sign is funny and everyone deserves some fun with this magnificent decision (hope everyone got out of the blogs and into the streets last night) HOWEVER it does send the wrong message. This process is about equal rights for all, not turning marriage on its head for heterosexuals (disclosure: I am one). There is still a long road ahead for equality and support and votes will be needed from many – let's not alienate, even I'd it's fun.

  • 122. Dave P.  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Hmm.. Yeah, to me, it just seemed like thumbign our noses at NOM, not at straight married couples in general, but I suppose I coudl see how someone just seeing it out of context could thin otherwise. Probably not OK, IMO. I'd prefer if we get rid of it, personally.

  • 123. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Not to be disagreable but I like the logo/sign. It is ProtectMarriage.coms Logo and this is a parody. And a very good parody. The judges decision has literlly upended, remember they were the defendents here.

  • 124. Anna Bryan  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:26 am

    OK, I totally get the humor in the overturned Prop 8 sign, but I wonder if it might be construed as an attack on the traditional family.

    I know, that's quite a bit coming from me, but I would probably take that as a warning that it might be just a little too much…

  • 125. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I would have to agree with you Anna. I personally will not be using that sign.

  • 126. Matt  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    I guess I would ask, at the appeal, what other evidence do you think your side needs to present to establish a convincing case?

  • 127. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:32 am

    It is my understanding that no new evidence can be presented at the appeal. That's what makes this whole thing so mind-boggling. They had their opportunity…and they knew this was their only chance to present evidence….and yet they couldn't come up with anything!

  • 128. Adam G.  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:44 am

    If you ask them, I'm sure they'll say they presented evidence. They fundamentally don't get that tradition, religion, and other superstitions just don't count as "evidence".

    W.I. Thomas said once that "if men define things as real, they are real in their consequences." The problem is that they define religious beliefs as real, and the law doesn't.

  • 129. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:39 am

    No new evidence may be presented on appeal; the only facts permitted in evidence are those already discussed.


  • 130. Alexis  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:28 am

    ok so I've decided to de-lurk. I've been following P8TT since it started and with yesterdays news I just needed to say how excited and happy I am for all of us!!!! And I also wanted to thank everyone who has helped in getting us here and to everyone at P8TT (people at courage campaign running the site and commenters) for covering everything from the trial and the NOM tour. You guys are sooo awesome!!

    I read Judge Walker's ruling all the way through yesterday and it was amazing. He really didn't leave anything out. I would definitely recommend that everyone at least try to read through most of it. It's worth it (although it looks like a lot of you are).

    oh and I would ask NOM if they have actually read the transcripts of the trial (or in MG's case, if she was awake and paying attention, not sure if any of the others were there) and the ruling, to point out exactly what evdience Judge Walker missed in making his ruling and what of their points did he not address in his ruling. They didn't exactly give him a whole lot to work with in even considering their side so I don't see what they're complaining about. They had their chance and failed.

    And now that I feel like I've written an essay I will go back to lurking.

  • 131. RSSmith  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:29 am

    The smear campaign against Judge Walker (and his opinion) has already started… on the news in L.A. this morning, they were already talking about Walker's so-called "personal bias" on the issue… like another so-called "straight" judge couldn't possibly have a "heterosexual or theological bias" against SSM. I admit… in his opinion, he was pretty harsh on the defendants "witnesses"… tho they definitely presented a weak case. I find it sad that society has been reduced to all this political mud-slinging & personal attacks. Whatever happened to honesty & integrity?

  • 132. Andrew  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Honesty and integrity aren't Biblical values. Persecuting homosexuality is.

    Wait… What was that? Honesty and integrity *are* Biblical values? Oooops, guess it was lost in translation.

  • 133. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Honesty and integrity went out the window when the neo-cons redefined what conservatism is.

  • 134. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Well, that's what the appeals process is for. Geez!
    "We don't agree with this ruling. IMPEACH! IMPEACH!"


  • 135. Joel  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:34 am

    To Sherry @ "The View". I doubt you're reading this particular blog, but please, please could you inform yourself before opening your mouth? There was NEVER a question of whether churches would have to perform marriages that violated their tenets! He'll, woman, there are still churches in the deep south that wouldn't bless YOUR marriage, should you choose to marry a Caucasian, and most orthodox Jewish Rabbis refuse to marry interfaith couples. Stop being dumb. Hasselbitch, excuse me, Hasselback is catching up, finally. Why can't you?

  • 136. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I'm sick of asking any of them any questions.
    Does no good….they just continue to dodge and weave and avoid the obvious correct answers.
    What I would love to see is more of our leaders being interviewed at length so maybe finally we could get more of the factual info from the trial out into mainstream media and to the American people.
    I can't count how many people I talked to yesterday about the P8 who had no idea there even was a trial.

  • 137. Dave P.  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:03 am

    I agree Mark. But take note, down here in California the pro equality folks have been getting massive extended coverage and interviews all over every TV channel and radio station since Tuesday evening. The lawyers, the plaintiffs, various other people involved in defeating Prop 8, random folks interviewed on the street at the marches and celebrations, you name it. And we're lookin' good! Our true message is FINALLY getting out there in a massive media flood. I like this.

  • 138. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:40 am

    That's true Dave…I hadn't figured that in when I made my comment. I was focusing more on the NOM tour rallies themselves rather than the CA events and all.
    Point taken 🙂

  • 139. phillykarl  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Here's my question for Maggie;
    Brian insinuated that the reason you were unable to put up a reasonable defense was because learned Professors who could have been witnesses for you were afraid for their professional livelihoods. Do you agree with that? What kind of repercussions would professors from the following Catholic Universities experience: Albertus Magnus College, Alvernia University, Alverno College, Ancilla Domini College, Anna Maria College, Aquinas College, Assumption College, Athenaeum of Ohio, Ave Maria University, Avila University, Barry University, Bellarmine University, Belmont Abbey College, Benedictine College, Benedictine University, Boston College, Brescia University, Briar Cliff University, Cabrini College, Caldwell College, Calumet College of St. Joseph, Canisius College, Cardinal Stritch University, Carlow University, Carroll College, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Chatfield College, Chestnut Hill College, Christendom College, Christian Brothers University, Clarke University, College of Mt. St. Joseph, College of Mt. St. Vincent, College of New Rochelle, College of Notre Dame of Maryland, College of St. Benedict, College of St. Elizabeth, College of St. Joseph in Vermont, College of St. Mary, College of St. Rose, College of St. Scholastica, College of St. Thomas More, College of the Holy Cross, Creighton University, DePaul University, DeSales University, Divine Word College, Dominican College,Dominican University,Donnelly College, etc. ( see full list at

  • 140. Alex O'Cady  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Don't think I've seen this suggested, so I'm de-lurking to ask…

    Do the parties' arguments for and against a stay pending appeal stay on the record with the case? So that if (when) the 9th Circuit upholds or rejects Walker's ruling, they have a body of evidence already to consider regarding whether they should issue a stay pending appeal to the SCOTUS?

    Not sure if I'm being altogether clear, but it seemed to me from Walker's ruling that he was pretty clearly against issuing a stay. So is holding off on the decision until we can enter arguments against a stay sort of a strategic move to get more evidence and opinions included before he rejects the stay?

    I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I don't know if this even makes legal sense.

    Also, I wanted to mention that I agree with Lawrence and Anna Bryan, I love the idea of the sign, but when I first saw it, I cringed. The first thought running through my head was the NOMbies pointing to that as vindication of their belief that we're trying to destroy heterosexual marriage….

  • 141. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:49 am

    I think perhaps a sign showing three families (one led by two male stick figures, one led by a male and a female stick figure, and one led by two female stick figures) all in equal proportions would be a better representation of our message.

  • 142. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:55 am


    I saw that exact logo (that you just described) on the Cafepress website. And the figures were in rainbow colors, of course. 🙂

    But I don't think anyone intended the 'overturned' logo to become our new icon; it was just a pictoral representation of what happened yesterday. That logo (upright) represents the prop 8 stance, so turning it over….well…it seems appropriate to me.

  • 143. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:56 am

    nihgtshayde…I've made a poster like that…it posted on Freedom Fighters for Equality FB. I also have it with out the disclaimer at the bottom….I made it to counter an Equality Opponent poster I saw on one of the anti-gay marriage pages…<3…Ronnie:

  • 144. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Yes! With a caption

  • 145. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Yes, I don' like that banner either, please at the very least , put those little children right side up, it's their parents that need to stand on their heads, leave the children alone.

  • 146. Francis Martin  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:16 am


  • 147. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:24 am

    @Alex,Anna, and Mark: I agree; the upside down sign is misleading. It implies that we want to overthrow marriage, which is not our point and exactly what the fearmongers say we want. The point was that Prop-H8 was overturned, and as Prop-H8 is the brain-child of, their backwards notions have been overturned. It wuold have been much nicer for us if PM.Com used something other than a heterosexual family as their logo.

    @nightshayde,Linda, and Ronnie… Love the all-inclusive logo idea much better… Too bad I can't access Facebook at work to see it.


  • 148. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:29 am

    The logo on Cafepress features three stick figure couples–hetero, gay, straight–in rainbow colors with the caption underneath reading 'Love is Love'….

    I personally like that very much. The only thing to add would be the children.

  • 149. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Ha! In my previous post it should read "hetero, gay, LESBIAN" ….DUH!

  • 150. l8r_g8r  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:08 am

    The stay is nothing more than a determination of whether to let same-sex couples marry right now or wait. No new evidence will be presented to become part of the record in this case, but in some circumstances evidence is permitted for the sole, limited purpose of determining the balance to apply. Judge Walker will have to decide:

    (i) the likelihood of success on the merits, (ii) whether the moving party will be irreparably injured if the stay is denied, (iii) whether the party opposing the stay will suffer substantial injury if the Court grants a stay, and (iv) whether granting the stay would be in the public interest.

    It's a balancing act. There is a very strong argument that granting the stay is in the public interest because if equality does not prevail in the end, any marriages performed could be invalidated, creating uncertainty for those couples. That's a very strong argument for a stay. However, the evidence in the case already shows that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is a significant harm in and of itself, so the question is whether that risk of harm outweighs the public interest when considering the likelihood that we will prevail at the 9th Circuit.

    In addition, if Judge Walker does not grant a stay, ADF can ask the 9th Circuit to grant a stay.

  • 151. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I like the sign that I downloaded from a link that I believe Rhonda posted. Especially the caption: Emancipate Love! IMHGO, that is the one we should rally with!

  • 152. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    A couple of other items were placed on the docket this morning, but they are nothing new to the case, so I haven't uploaded them. They are simply formal notice to all the parties involved of the appeal (as reported in the earlier thread) and transmission to the 9th Circuit of certain documents (e.g., the docket sheet).

  • 153. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:43 am

    @ Kathleen: Earlier, you quoted from the notice of appeal, and my question has to do with one of the terms, so that I can see if I have an understanding. What is the "interlocutory" whatevers that they are referring to?

  • 154. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:53 am

    "Interlocutory" refers to something that happens after the case begins, but before the end of the case, which decides some question but doesn't resolve the main issue that the case is about. So, here, an interlocutory order would refer to any order that Walker issued while the case was still undecided — an order that only became final as a result of his final ruling in the case.

    As you know, I'm really weak in procedure, but I suspect that the language in the notice of appeal is pretty standard – it's just a way of covering their bases, saying they're giving notice that they could appeal any and all conclusions of law that were decided in this case.

  • 155. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Thank you, Kathleen. To be honest, I thought they were using their tautological expertise again.

  • 156. Linda  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Interesting to read the objections to the altered prop 8 sign. I didn't see it as an attack on OS marriage; rather as a 'tilt' of the prop 8 view.

    I thought it was delightfully clever!

    (just my two cents…)

  • 157. Alex O'Cady  |  August 5, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Just to clarify, I don't personally see it as an attack on OS marriage (I think it's great), but I can see how NOM and their ilk would. I know that's not the best argument not to do something, but it seems like this would meet their criteria for "proof" of our "agenda", and it's in the form of an image that they can easily download and disseminate to their followers. That's what bugs me.

  • 158. Anna Bryan  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:06 am


  • 159. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Agreed….don't see any good in pouring salt in their wounds

  • 160. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Don't feel strongly one way or another, but when I saw the sign I read it literally as 'Prop 8 has been overturned'.

  • 161. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Doesn't everybody remember that this logo is the logo from who were defendents in this case? Remember how they tried to sue Courage Campaign when CC took their logo and modified for P8TT parody logo showed,I can't remember now was it 2 women with 2 children? Yeah CC actually had to go to court and the judge threw out the case saying the P8TT logo was a paradoy of's logo and was permissible.

    We did turn upsidedown with this modifcation of their logo in light of the verdict. I think it is pretty clever myself, I get the joke. But I don't want to get into a big debate on the issue. I just want to stay happy today 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • 162. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:44 am

    You know the logo, I know the logo, many of our supporters know the logo…..
    But will John Q. Public recognize the logo for what it is?

    That's what I'm worried about.


  • 163. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:05 am

    OK… this one I wrote while we were waiting for the decision to be posted, Tuesday night to Wednesday.

    Not yet on the NOM bus – prequel
    It is June, in an office in New Jersey. Three people, a man in a brown suit, a short woman and a third man are standing around, looking somewhat depressed. The man in the brown suit is Brian, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, in whose offices we are now waiting. He is average looking, with a Midwestern insurance salesman’s face, and his brown suit is the only outfit he will wear for the entire movie. The woman is Maggie, chairperson of the NOM board. She is rather dumpy looking, smarter than the other two, but as a woman, she knows she must not be TOO aggressive. The third of the trio is Louis, a younger man, wearing a polo shirt with a NOM logo on it, and as well as a matching baseball hat. We will never see anyone else in a polo shirt or hat that matches this, giving the impression that he had them made up specially. He is somewhat hyperactive at times, and occasionally catches himself doing something “swishy” which he quickly suppresses when he notices it.

    They are all looking at a computer screen. They all then lean back and sigh.

    Brian: So that’s it then. Closing statements are done, and we have to get ready.

    Louis: I’m ready now! (He reaches behind the desk and pulls out a suitcase).

    Maggie: Easy, Louis. The tour doesn’t start until next month. Relax.

    Louis: You got the bus, right? I mean, you need to have a bus, after all. I TOLD you that you had to have a bus.

    Brian: Yes, Louis, we got the bus. It’s on order. We couldn’t find anyone to pose for the pictures on the side of the bus, but we sorted that out.

    Maggie: How about you and your kids, Brian?

    Brian: Are you kidding me? How about YOUR husband and kid(s??)?

    Maggie: Umm… yeah. Well …

    Louis: What do you mean?

    Maggie: Pregnant first, THEN I married a man named Raman? I mean, it plays well here in the east for some of the middle of the road crowd who might be a touch more liberal, but how do you think they would like it in Sioux City?

    Brian: Yep, probably not. But I don’t want my kids to be the targets of recriminations…

    Maggie: Give it up Brian, no one is coming after us. You don’t need to use the PR scare tactics on me.

    Louis: I don’t have kids…

    Maggie and Brian: We KNOW Louis…

    Louis: (right over the top of them) but if I did, I would be happy to have them help show that this is an important cause. You know how I feel about this.

    Maggie: Yes! We know!

    Brian: (trying to sell the idea) We’re just using some stock photos… who’ll ever know?

    Maggie shakes her head, then circles around the desk and sits behind it. Brian looks down at her, then clears his throat.

    Brian: That is MY desk, Maggie.

    Maggie glares at him, and after a minute, he gives up and sits on a chair. Louis perches on the corner of the desk, and Maggie glares at him, but he is oblivious. After another minute, she sighs and speaks.

    Maggie: Louis, could you go get me a cup of coffee please?

    Louis: (a little excited) Oooh… want me to go down and get you a frappe? I love them.

    Brian looks somewhat askance at Louis, who realizes his mistake, then lowers his voice an octave.

    Louis: I mean, yeah, sure… coffee… got it… (and he leaves the office).

    Maggie puts her face in her hands.

    Brian: We have to watch him…

    Maggie: (popping her head up and glaring at Brian) He is YOUR boyfriend. You brought him in to this…

    Brian: (flustered) What… what do you mean?

    Maggie: (long suffering) You know what I mean, Brian. You brought him, you control him.

    Brian: But his enthusiasm will be great! He wants to drive the bus, which saves us money, and he’ll blog from the road, and we KNOW how effective that can be.

    Maggie: I am too tired to argue this with you.

    Brian: Some days I think you are only in this for the paycheck, Maggie.

    Maggie: (sarcastic) You think?

    Brian: What do you mean?

    Maggie: You think we are going to WIN this fight? When I started this organization, it was a great stepping stone. I was getting published more regularly, and this was pretty good publicity, and we didn’t have to DO anything. I could go and write the stuff I was already writing anyway, and get more money for it…ah, never mind.

    Brian: Don’t you… don’t you believe…?

    Maggie: Of COURSE I do, Brian. But we both know that “they” are insidious, so if we don’t get out there and stir up our cash cows, this whole thing is going to collapse right under us.

    Brian: Well, that’s true, anyway.

    Maggie: So you have to stay on message, Brian. Anytime a protester SNEEZES in our direction, you have to tell the troops that we are being attacked with biological weapons. This is war, Brian, and we have to win, or our children will grow up to be flaming. (she gets a bit of the wild eyed fanatic look to her, and she jumps up and starts pacing) “They” want to recruit our children, Brian. They are going to corrupt them in the schools, in the churches, in our homes. I won’t have it! I won’t…

    Brian (cutting her off) Maggie!

    He opens her purse and takes out a pill bottle, shakes one out and presses it into her hand. She looks around like the demons are coming for her, but as Brian encourages her to do, she takes the pill. After a moment, she smooths her skirt and sits again.

    Maggie: Yes… well…

    Brian: I am ready for them. (he starts pacing, getting more and more excited) Who do we really have to worry about, anyway? We’ve planned for the minimum number of attendees on both sides, so if we can just get a protester or two to say something really outrageous, or to, I hope, I hope, I hope, HIT someone…

    Louis bursts back in carrying a paper tray with three paper coffee cups. He is wriggling with excitement, and as he comes through the door, he tosses the coffee up in the air. As it rains down all over Maggie, Louis grabs Brian’s hands and starts dancing around the room with him like two little kids who are so excited they are going to pee their pants.

    Louis: It’s here! It’s here! The bus is here! It’s here! It’s here! It’s here!…

    Brian: (overlapping) I hope! I hope! I hope! I hope!…

    Maggie, covered with coffee, a large blob of whipped cream in her hair and drips running down her face, rolls her eyes to the ceiling.

    Maggie: Oh dear god, what have I gotten myself into?

    As the gleeful dancing continues, fade to black.

  • 164. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:18 am

    You never fail to make me laugh!

  • 165. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:22 am


    I can't wait for the full movie 🙂


  • 166. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:05 am

    I want to play Louis! I love playing opposite of my real self.

  • 167. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Can I play Maggie?/? I think I have the hips for it

  • 168. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:07 am

    But you would need so much padding for that neck! We would have to film it in the winter, otherwise whoever plays Maggie would lose 20 lbs a day just in sweat.

  • 169. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I'd porobaly have to shave most of my facial hair off too I suppose ;-(

  • 170. Joel  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Really, I think Kathy Bates would be perfect to play Maggie. She's a consummate actress with a wide range of abilities.

    If we could rough up Nathan Lane a little (and butch him up a little) perhaps he could play BB.

    And how about the lead actor from "The Big Bang Theory" for Lewis, although he's probably too skinny?

  • 171. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Actually, I think Nathan Lane for Louis, and Peter DeLouise for BB. But Kathy Bates as Maggie would be perfect. All she would have to do is reprise the same psychoses and neuroses she portrayed so wonderfully in "Misery."

  • 172. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    How about Philip Seymour Hoffman for BB?

  • 173. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    No, Philip Seymour Hoffman is too handsome to play BB, to be honest. We need somebody who looks scary, kind of like an overweight Jack Nicholson.

  • 174. JonT  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Oh definitely. got to keep these 🙂

  • 175. Francis Martin  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:14 am

    I've been upset with the obama camp when it comes to this issue, as well some others but particularly this issue. It seems to me, the president still has this belief that if he plays it in the middle everybody will love him. Which is a false notion since it's been almost 2 years since election day and 75 percent of all republicans dont even believe he is even a citizen. Yesterday was a perfect chance for him to support the movement without adding the extra 2 centsof "but i only support same sex marriage". It's like a person that says i support gay rights…but dont call me gay cause i am not. It's really annoying. As a lifelong democrat im bound to vote for him again in 2012….. but i'll do it with severe reservations. I wish the white house would've stayed quiet…talk about raining on my gay parade

  • 176. Dave in CA  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Maggie and ilk are harping on it this way:

    "…federal judge substituting his views… [and] courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution…"

    I hope the pro-equality people will unrelentingly and consistently call her out on this. Nobody is "putting gay marriage in our Constitution." Straw man argument.

    What the judge did was call for the existing Constitution to be enforced AS IT IS: ie, apply the 14th Amendment – Equal Protection and Due Process for All – AS WRITTEN.

    Do NOT let their straw man argument get legs to stand on.

  • 177. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Obama is definetly struggling with reliegion, his mamma didn't raise him to be influenced that way…… But he met Michelle while doing volunteer work in a church, Michelle, has pulled him into that baptist religion, I think we need to hear from the first Lady, and I would ask Obama to honor the wisdom his parents raised him with. and stop towing the line for religion.

  • 178. Erin  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately in this country, not being religious is political career suicide. He's catering to the religious crowds in order to get reelected.

  • 179. Alan E.  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Here is a working link for the NY TImes article:

    Molly McKay's picture is amazing (#1). You can see my sign and part of my face on picture #6.

  • 180. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:25 am

    That's my brother holding up the big Marriage Equality sign! Go, Stuart!!!

  • 181. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:00 am

    He looks SO happy 🙂

  • 182. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Doesn't he, though? He's still flying today!

  • 183. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Great pictures all 'round. Don't the os couple with the 1M1W sign look a little forlorn? They could have tossed the sign and joined in the celebration! (talk about 'choosing a lifestyle)

    Hey, Alan, I see your left eye in the picture!!

  • 184. Jon  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Maggie tried so hard to stay on message, I started to feel sorry for her!

    I believe that she believes that some vague horrible danger will materialize if same sex couples are allowed to marry. I also believe that she's coming across as crazy when she makes these weird threats on camera. Will it be like with the black helicopters? What?

  • 185. Erin  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I believe she probably knows by now that she is wrong. She has lost debate after debate on tv, and if her side is the correct one on this issue, they would have had more than one witness to offer in the Perry trial. No matter how many times or different ways we point out that she is just pushing bigotry, she won't budge. The reason for that is because opposing gay marriage is how she collects a paycheck.

  • 186. Anonymous  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:29 am

    In her article in the San Francisco Chronicle today, Maggie Gallagher Srivastav said that "A federal judge in Nebraska ruled for gay marriage in 2005 and was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006." There is not much information on that case online, and the bearing of that ruling on this case and subsequent ones. I was wondering if either a comment or a full on post could explain why this is the first federal case testing the constitutional validity of a ban on same-sex marriage, and explain what that Nebraska case was all about, and why it is apparently irrelevant to this case. Here is the article to which I refer:


  • 187. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:18 am

    I found a reference to Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. Let's see if I can put in the link:…..

    I'm no legal expert, nor have I read this yet, so I cannot say anything useful. Maybe one of our more legal friends can help you with this other case?


  • 188. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Andrew, I keep getting a screen that says this can't be found. I think the link is broken or that they moved it.

  • 189. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Try this:

    After seeing Maggie reference this case repeatedly in the last few days, I looked it up and have only had a chance to skim it. I haven't had a chance to really formulate a well-thought out response, so this is just an initial reaction.

    First, it's made clear that appellees (plaintiffs who brought the suit) never made a claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Secondly, like Walker's ruling, all the equal protection analysis involved rational basis review, but unlike Walker, the 8th Circuit accepted arguments about 'procreation' as being rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

    From the decision:
    The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in “steering procreation into marriage.” By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children.” The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot.

    I haven't looked carefully enough at the decision to see just what, if any, evidence was presented at trial (the lower court) to refute or substantiate this claim that these interests are furthered by denying ss couples access to marriage. I sincerely doubt there was the depth or breadth of evidence presented in Perry.

    I'm also curious to go back to the briefs submitted by both sides in Perry to see if this case was cited. Although an 8th Circuit decision isn't binding on a district court in California, it would fall into the category of persuasive precedent. And I would be surprised if Proponents didn't reference it at some point in the proceedings.

  • 190. Matt  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Re: Maggie's post, the irony is that Soviet Union was (and Russia still is) MUCH more homophobic than the US.

  • 191. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:38 am


    Let's just for a moment stop this merry go round of baiting and spinning, no matter which way you put it we'll only give them air time for their spin.

    Could we just for this one time ask a question not from an adult perspective,

    Could we really throw us all of balance, they'll be ready for all the angles.

    COULD WE ASK NOM IF THEY ARE AWARE THAT LITTLE BABY ROY WAS BEATEN TO DEATH FOR ACTING LIKE A GIRL? do they know that happened? and how do they feel about that.

    Stop the spin for a minute, no matter which side won this round of the battle, a child has died, for the very reasions we're arguing about.

    Please ask NOM if they are aware of this, then ask if they will just stand with us in a moment of silence . a moment of silence for little Roy would be better than any words NOM could fill that space with and it would be the first time we stood together for anything. PLEASE for the children who die while we fight.

  • 192. Omini  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:48 am

    i second this

  • 193. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Bob, sadly I can tell you EXACTLY the answer that question will get.

    "While we deplore this tragedy, and we send our sympathy to the family of baby Roy, we feel this only helps point up the value of traditional marriage. The man who killed this baby was not his father, and not married to his mother, which shows that no one was looking out for this child. We hope that people will realize soon that a mother AND a father, married to each other, are essential for the care and well being of children."

    They will not address the issue of WHY he did it, nor any of the related issues, but they WILL turn it around to their propaganda.. Personally, while I am horrified at this crime, and its implications, I would be sickened to see it used by them to further their cause, when we know the attitudes they foster are why it happened, so I would just as soon not give them the chance to do so.

  • 194. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:10 am

    anonygrl you're going to fast, and making NOM's statements for them.

    The only question I ask is ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS TRAGEDY? bring attention to it, not to get their spin on it.

    And the interviewer having control of the situation then says, will you stand with us in a moment of siloence. This would be the powerful thing, A moment of silence for Roy, ackowledge his death . we can all do it in our own way.

    But it brings attention to the urgency of the matter, children are dying because heterosexual men fear feminiity.

    We could all pause and reflect on this, Roy was beaten for acting like a girl, let's just stop for one moment of silence, without any slpin, this is not about us, this is about the children.

  • 195. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Bob, I am in total agreement with you about the horror here. And yes.. it is a fight we MUST address.

    I was merely pointing out the inevitable answer that will be given. You can ASK them to stand in silence with you, but unless you are willing to punch them in the voicebox to GET that silence (a solution I see as more dangerous than the disease), the answer is going to be pretty much what I outlined, and you will be completely frustrated at their lack of cooperation. They will NOT stand with us on anything, they will find ways to get out of it, to turn it around, to, as you say, spin it. They will not, they CANNOT admit that the child was killed because of homophobia and it would be an exercise in futility to even try to get them to do so.

  • 196. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:28 am

    And the reason I run ahead of you here is that when the interviewer asks the question "Are you aware..?" the simple ASKING of it invites a response, and the response will be "If only the boy had a real family, a mother and a father, this would not have happened." I cannot imagine an interviewer being able to ask that question and then PREVENT them from getting in their answer. And to go back, after that and say "Could we stand in silence?" makes it look like WE agree that the lack of opposite sex married parents is the problem here.

  • 197. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:34 am

    yes , it is a time of great joy, and also great sorrow, we're good at celebrating, but our humanity escapes us when it comes to the expression of sorrow.

    anonygrl, your response indicates we are more concerned with how we might look, and that our sorrow or acknowledgement of it may in some way give power to someone else.

    sorry baby Roy, it's to risky to mention your passing, in this horrendous way, although it exemplifies everything we stand for, and exactly what we are hoping to avoid in the future. sorry, we're too involved in our adult discusssions about leagal ease, and constituions, we can't break step with that conversation for fear NOM might spin your death in their favour.

    when we are all grown up we will realize the expression of sorrow and acknowledgement of your death, transcends debates of religion and politics, we're working to get there. it's just that we're not ready at this time to stand in sober reflection of how you were beaten and why.

  • 198. Anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Bob, please don't twist what I am saying. I am not saying nothing should be said, merely that it seems in extremely poor taste if we allow this tragedy to be turned around to benefit those whose attitudes caused it. Your suggestion, while it comes from the heart and I respect that, has the problems I mentioned associated with it. That is all I am saying.

    To address your other point, imagine, if you will, the situation were reversed. If this were a blog all about Roy. If you were to come in and start crowing about Prop 8, we would probably support you, agree with you, and be moved by the events. We would then turn back to the business at hand.

    We, however, should not be dunned because we have other additional focusses than you do.

    Many people have agreed, and continue to agree, that this is an issue that should not be swept under the rug. But what we do here, working toward equality, is one way that we can help to insure that in the future, there will be less prejudice, less homophobia. And yes, it is OK that we are celebrating, even while tragedy has happened. Tragedy has happened to many of this community, in many, many ways. None of those tragedies are being forgotten, or dismissed, but we've a great deal of happiness and love to pass around right now, and we are going to be doing it, not to spite those tragedies, or Roy, but to honor them.

    We are not forgetting this, but we can and should also be joyous about what has occurred in California, and it is not an insult to Roy nor to your feelings that we are. Please stop taking it as such.

  • 199. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Thanks again for remding us of little baby Roy, 17months old an beat to deat for acting to girly….Oh so sad. I guess today we have great joy and great sorrow.

  • 200. Bryan  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:54 am

    I'm sorry, President Obama, but you can't simultaneously oppose gay marriage and "support full equality." I'm so tired of (Democrat!) politicians trying to have it both ways.

    Would we allow someone to say that the respect and revere women, and want them to be treated equally, but they oppose women's suffrage? Of course not. These kinds of stances ARE NOT ALLOWED, because they don't make ANY SENSE.

    It's not possible to think that I'm a truly decent, loving, normal person, but also oppose my ability to marry. You either think I should be treated like a human being, or you don't. We need to start calling out our "supporters" on their BS.

  • 201. Sophia  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I like the content of this posting, but is there a reason we're referring to the men by their last names and the woman by her first name? (Dislike of the woman is not a valid reason.)

  • 202. AndrewPDX  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Apparently, you may not have noticed all the references to Brian and Louis 😉


  • 203. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:45 am

    I can't find but a handful of posts that use the men's last names only…..
    Most posts refer to all of 'them' by thoer first names
    Brian, Louis, and Maggie….
    Not sure I understand you…………..

  • 204. Sophia  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Obama, Cooper. I'm not sure what there is not to understand.

  • 205. Erin  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I have a question. Since it is one of their talking points that we don't need gay marriage because we supposedly have (the same?) rights with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, ask her if she'll go on record saying she supports CU's and DP's, and ask her if she's ever done any activism against CU's and DP's.

  • 206. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:33 am

    And if she IS willing to accept it if it is called a Civil Union, follow that with asking her why she didn't let Governor LIngle know that before she vetoed Hawai'i's CU bill.

  • 207. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Both Brian and Maggie have addressed this question (well, their form of addressing questions).

    If I remember Brian's response correctly, it was something like: he won't talk about hypotheticals and then follows with something about letting him know if someone is willing to come to the table with a proposal for civil unions. Maggie has said that it's obvious to her that civil unions are just activists' way of providing a stepping stone to marriage, and thus they can't be allowed.

  • 208. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:33 am

    @Sophia, I referred to the male child that died, by his first name ROY, totally avoidded that one didnt you.

  • 209. Sophia  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Actually, no I didn't (I said, "is there a reason we're referring to the men . . . "; a male child is not a man). Children are usually referred to by first name. There is no reason to refer to an adult woman, however repulsive she may be, by first name when you are referring to the men involved by last name.

  • 210. Sophia  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Bob, I wasn't even talking about your posting. I was talking about the main article. I actually hadn't read your comments, and I really have no comment to make about them. One expects a certain standard of writing in this kind of article, but certainly not in the comments that people make in response.

  • 211. Bob  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:58 am

    well in this particualr instance this little male child will never make it to manhood, because his heterosexual caregiver beat him to death for what he thought were terrifying symptoms of feminity. that's perhaps the ultimate extreme, of what we are discussing, while avoiding the actual fact.

    Thanks for clarifiying you were referring to the main post,

    I would love for a main post to be about the children, suffering while we're fighting.

  • 212. Sophia  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Bob, I am unable to reply directly to your response. I'm not sure what your hostility is about. What happened to this child was horrific, but this has nothing to do with what I posted, and what I posted does not suggest that what happened to this child was not horrific. The point of my post was that I like to think that sexual equality and gender equality go hand in hand–but all too often this appears not to be the case.

  • 213. dtwirling  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I have a real problem with the imagery contained in the "Overturned" picture. A victory for marriage equality does NOT put a "traditional" family on its head. That's what we've been arguing this entire time. What should be depicted is both families standing side by side. Equally.

  • 214. Omini  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:54 am

    thats probably not what they were suggesting when they made it. of course everyone here wants same sex marriages to coexist with opposite sex marriages, thats the whole goal of this struggle. I'm pretty sure that they were just making fun of the "Yes on 8" sign imagery made by NOM and not making a subtle reference to any secret "anti-hetero-marriage" agenda (that they dont have)

    you do have a good observation there, though. the picture is good for a laugh, but might have a different message than we want if one thinks about the imagery a lot.

  • 215. Alex O'Cady  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:28 am

    What worries me (and I'm sure others who have objected to it) is that it doesn't take a lot of thought, if you're already looking for negative messages, which is what NOMbies will do. I just worry that we're inadvertently giving them more ammunition.

  • 216. Carrie Peterson  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Question for Brian or Maggie:

    NOM asserts as the crux of its argument that same-sex marriage will harm children because children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Studies plainly demonstrating this to be false aside, Judge Walker pointed out in his decision that such an argument makes an implicit statement about gender roles in a marriage. Does NOM believe that traditional gender roles are that which makes both a male and female parent indespensible?

    If not, what quality of males and females *does* NOM believe makes a parent of each sex indespensible?

    If so, does this mean NOM believes individuals who do not conform to traditional gender roles are also unfit to marry or raise children?

  • 217. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Another email from BS Brown.
    I must post the text here, as well as the picture.

    Dear Kevyn,

    It happened . . . the unthinkable, the wrong, the outrageous.

    An openly gay judge in San Francisco ruled that the votes and values of over 7 million Californians were to be thrown in the dustbin like so many pieces of dirty paper, that his imperial will trumps the voice of the people.

    We expected this outcome, because Judge Walker has telegraphed his bias loud and clear. But the sheer audacity, the sheer ego mania of the decision is startling. One judge versus the all of the voters of California, plus the 30 other states that have voted directly to protect marriage. One judge against the simple common sense notion that it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. And he thinks that this will be the end of it…

    But he's wrong. Very wrong. We will fight back, and we will win! This case is no doubt going to the Supreme Court and the National Organization for Marriage will continue to give generously to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. We've already given $100,000. We were the largest single donor to Proposition 8 and the successful efforts in Maine, New York and New Jersey to protect marriage. But now we're in the fight of our lives.

    Will your right to vote be trampled in the dirt by a San Francisco judge or will you stand and fight? That's the only question you need to answer right now.

    It's up to you. Our victories in California, Maine, New Jersey, and New York were based on your willingness to provide the resources necessary to fight the good fight. Someone else is not going to do this for you. We're up against a cadre of gay marriage advocates and millionaires and have been repeatedly outspent. But we've won because of you.

    And we're now in for the fight of our lives. This decision threatens to overturn marriage not only in California, but throughout this great nation. Imagine one judge dictating to every state that they don't have the right to vote on marriage. Judge Walker is right that this is a civil rights question, it's a question of our civil rights!

    Will you give $25, $50, $100, or even $500 dollars to support our efforts in California and throughout the country? Click here to make your gift right now.

    We'll keep giving you updates as the appeal progresses, and are right now in the middle of our national Summer for Marriage tour, launched in anticipation of this very decision. We're reaching out to hundreds of thousands of Americans to take a stand for marriage. We'll fight this in the courts and in Congress, but we need your help right now.

    Please give and send this message to five of your friends today. We can't wait. We need your support now.

    God bless you for your willingness to take a stand and fight for our civil rights. This is going to be a long haul. But we know that we are called to fight with everything in our being for the great truth that marriage is the union of a man and a women. We will never waver.

    We ask you to do the same. Please give generously now in this time of great need.

    Brian S. Brown
    National Organization for Marriage
    2029 K Street, NW, Suite 300
    Washington, DC  20006
    [email protected]

    P.S.: We must put Washington on notice that the American people won't stand by while the courts trample our right to vote for marriage.  We've launched a petition to send a message to Congress: It's time to protect marriage! Click here to sign the petition today!

  • 218. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    They still don't get it. This is NOT a theocracy, no matter how much they wish it were.

  • 219. Mandy  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Wow remind me never to read the comments at fox news. I never understood people who say now that gay people can get married I can marry my dog or cat. Ugh it breaks my heart to see that people equate the love of two consenting adults to the love of a pet (not that there are strong relationships between pets and their owners) but it just goes to show that they feel that they are better then gay men and lesbians.

    As for Obama I don't know I am so confused when it comes to him. I would love the president to say I am for ssm and will undue the hatred that has been legalized in this country. But at the same time there are so many other factors that are going on. I believe that Obama is confused about gay marriage. He is certainly for civil rights and not discriminating against anyone based on their sexual orientation which would include marriage. But something is making him conflicted. Kind of like the people who truly believe that marriage is based on religion and their religion says it is between a man and a woman but the person does admit that it is not a secular contract and therefore religion doesn't belong there. Plus he has to clean up the mess from the past 8 years and all the other messes that are going on. If he he fights for gay marriage he may lose when it comes to the recovery of this country. I want to be mad at Obama and say do what is right and support ssm and repeal dadt and doma immediately but at the same time politics is not so black and white. Maybe this just goes to show the problem with this country in terms of politics in that the president cannot stand up for what he believes in with sacrificing millions of americans to the far right.

  • 220. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Avoid the Sacramento Bee as well … it's scary.


  • 221. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

    And the Mercury News. Even the SF Comical can get scary.

    General rule: avoid the comments.

  • 222. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:16 am

    And don't read any of the comments on the Yahoo news service. Not even for the vast majority of articles that come from Reuters or AP.

  • 223. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:10 am


    Senate Confirms Elena Kagan as U.S. Supreme Court Justice by 63-37 Vote

    The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court on Thursday, giving President Obama his second appointment to the high court in a year, and a political victory as the Senate neared the end of its business for the summer.

    Ms. Kagan, a former dean of the Harvard Law School and a legal adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, was approved by a vote of 63 to 37 after hearings and floor debate that showcased competing views of Democrats and Republicans about the court, but exposed no significant stumbling blocks to her confirmation.

    She becomes the fourth woman ever named to the court, and will join two other woman currently serving, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Obama administration nominee, who was confirmed almost exactly one year ago.

  • 224. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:18 am


  • 225. David  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Wow. Gallagher makes no efforts to mask her contemptibly smug, bigoted rhetoric as anything but what it is. Her smarmy smiles and dismissive attitudes are the stuff of shock jocks.

    I must admit I found my blood pressure rising and slurs forming as I watched…but I'll pass.

    I will simply say that she is wrong. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. Marriage equality will be realized in spite of loathsome bigots, in spite of those would demonize us, in spite of those would have us resigned to second class citizenry. You're 15 minutes are up, lady.

  • 226. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:42 am

    More good news: Target CEO apologizes.

  • 227. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Thank you, Ann S.! Oh, I can't wait to show this to BZ! This is Fantastic! Now if we can get the same thing from Best Buy!

  • 228. Seraphiel  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:42 am

    “The president does oppose same sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples,” Axelrod said during an appearance on MSNBC.

    The sentence is contradictory. It is like saying the president does approve the use of cars, but supports laws requiring everyone to walk to their destinations.

  • 229. Anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Actually, it is more the opposite… he doesn't approve of cars, but he doesn't support laws forcing everyone to walk. He is saying that he doesn't support law that is restrictive, in this case. He is not in favor of cars, but he understands that others are, and he does not support laws that discriminate against them.

    And he, personally, can feel however he wants on the issue, as long as in his office he behaves in a constitutionally correct manner.

  • 230. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:43 am

    If Maggie insists that opposing marriage equality isn't bigoted, why does the NOM hide their financial supporters? They're showing their shame when they do this.

  • 231. James Macy-Simpson  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:04 am

    I would just once like to hear anyone from the anti-equality side explain their assertion that marriage has ALWAYS existed the way they claim.

    They seem to forget that there are alternate forms of marriage in other cultures now and throughout history. First People tribes honor Two-Spirits and acknowledge their unions as valid within the tribe. Druidic/Brehon law had 13 forms of marriage if I remember correctly.

    The only place marriage has ALWAYS been the way they claim is within their own narrow world view. And since NOM and the rest were in bed with the Church of Latter Day Saints over the initial ballot measure, they rather conveniently ignore that their allies have espoused and allowed polygamy in the continental US within the last 200 years.

    Considering the melting pot that is American, stating that there is only one way to do anything in this country is really out of touch with reality.

  • 232. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Back in 2004, the American Anthropological Association published a wonderful monograph called "Marriage: An Elastic Institution." It talked about all of the various types of marriage going on in the world today, as well as the historical antecedents that showed marriage is not one giant, worldwide, historical monolith.

    I wish it were still available on-line, because it's an outstanding resource.

    However, in 2008 ethnologist Evelyn Blackwell published a great article on matrifocal societies, "missing man" marriage, etc.:

    Fiona (who will try to find a citation for the other article if at all possible)

  • 233. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:14 am

    That sums up NOM very well, James.
    Out of Touch With Reality!

  • 234. fiona64  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Okay, here's a statement from the American Anthropological Association that cites the article in question, if nothing else:

    Quote: The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.


  • 235. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:22 am

    One of the witnesses who was deposed but did not testify at trial speaks to this a bit. You can see her deposition testimony here:

  • 236. nightshayde  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I (finally) just looked at the Pam's House Blend link. One of the quotes (Family Policy Institute of Washington, I believe) had this little nugget:

    In the world's of the immortal American philosopher Michael Jackson, "if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change."

    The fundies are now quoting Michael Jackson and referring to him as an "immortal American philosopher?"

    Really? REALLY?!

  • 237. Adam  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Wow! have you seen the whiney comments over at the NOM site? Isnt this just like everything else. When I saw the video earlier, I thought "why doesnt Anderson cut her off and remind her that this is his show and he will ask the questions, and that her job is to answer questions."

    And resisted all his questions and went on a diatribe in a tone deliberately to disrespect Anderson by plowing him out of the way and from directing his show.

    But I guess I am biased, cause Maggies minions seem to think Anderson wouldnt let her get a word in edgewise!


    I also notice how well the equality side presented itself. The gentleman was polite, respectful, articulate, and just came across as stating the perfectly natural and unassailable logic and truth.

    But Maggie was spinning like a top!

  • 238. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2010 at 10:37 am

    The dynamic was broader than that. Anderson treated Evan Wolfson with respect, asked him the first question (probably to tick Maggie off, and it worked), and Evan was cogent and reasonable in return. Maggie was argumentative, even though Cooper was being civil… persistent, but civil.

    By the way, Maggie's 'don't tell me what I think' line is standard with her. It deflects from the substance of whatever the criticism was.

  • 239. Michelle Evans  |  August 5, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Interesting that when Maggie always comes down so concerned about "traditional marriage," which also includes things like being celibate until wed, and that sort of thing, that she always fails to disclose the fact that she had her first child out of wedlock.

    And where is her husband and wedding ring?

    What a great supporter of "traditional" family values she is.

  • 240. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:06 am

    You all misunderstand the most Christian value of all: forgiveness. God's 'get out of jail free' card. The Roman Catholic church perfected it, but it's there in the evangelical traditions as well. You can do most anything. All you have to do is repent, and you become a shining example of true faith.

  • 241. Michael Brassard  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Amen, Amen, Amen! The will of the people is not always just! We need the courts to protect our rights to be treated equal and not as second class citizens. The courts and the constitution exist to protect our freedom. Thank you to the plaintiff's for bringing this fight to the court.

  • 242. Wayne  |  August 7, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Congrats to the Religious Right! Judge Walker has just handed them the decision they have been clamoring for… which was deicided solely upon the facts presented to him in open court and upon the Federal Constitution EXACTLY as it was written !

  • 243. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 7, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Yes, and they are still crying about the decision, saying that he "cherry picked" the facts, ignored their arguments,a dn was biased. And they are reviving the debate about Judge Walker's sexual orientation as part of their "proof" that he was biased. So, they have also proven that until they are able to convert this great nation from a constitutional representative democratic republic into a theocracy based solely on their interpretation of the scriptures, they will never be satisfied.

  • 244. atypzltuu  |  October 7, 2012 at 1:52 am

    rbNgh [url=]canada goose vest[/url] AJj

  • 245. sbbkfxhizihi  |  October 7, 2012 at 2:10 am

    På grund av behovet av att vara löjligt har njuta hårt grind i vuxenlivet , du satsar . [url=]canada goose parka[/url] vi skulle kallar det ett handikapp, förknippade med låtsas lämningar på ämnet etablerat

  • 246. jchddjqg  |  October 7, 2012 at 3:29 am

    ZOcS [url=]コーチ coach[/url] pxWoAk

  • 247. soomboruttott  |  February 26, 2013 at 9:30 am

    Always make sure that you retailer your gourmet coffee in a airtight container should you be not planning on working with it. This will assist to protect its quality to be able to make gourmet coffee that is certainly desired for your friends and relations. Gourmet coffee preferences the ideal when it is clean, as this will help to enhance your brew. [url=]Ugg Boots Wien[/url]
    Have denims professionally hemmed. Making a hem isn’t challenging having a sewing unit, but an excellent personalize can get rid of material from on top of the hem and reattach it. This keeps that sharp appearance and the initial stitches. The effect is really a properly-fitted pair of bluejeans that appears to came straight away from the rack. [url=]Ugg Ale[/url]
    Have the influenza vaccine each and every year should you suffer from asthma. Respiratory system or nasal conditions that will come from your bout with all the flu virus can actually do a variety by using an bronchial asthma patient. Using the precautionary tack of having the vaccine can help you save some severe suffering down the road. [url=]Canada Goose Norge[/url]
    An acupuncture period may be a terrific way to temporarily alleviate back pain. Bare in mind that homeopathy is just not an extensive-term solution, but it provides wonderful momentary alleviation. Don’t be afraid from the long fine needles they adhere in your body, simply because by the end in the session you may be begging to get more. [url=]Woolrich[/url]
    Juicing can be a enjoyable approach to add tasty nourishment in your day-to-day usage. It is possible to liquid most fruit and veggies for the flavorful and healthier take care of any time. Following the following tips, you might be particular to get the most take advantage of the juicing practical experience. Start right now to get pleasure from juicing. It can be alright to utilize a nicotine alternative during the start point of your respective smoking cessation program. Nicotine is very addictive, along with the withdrawal symptoms can be quite annoying. Smoking gum or lozenges can prevent you from feeling simple-tempered, moody and cranky and could be the distinction between accomplishment and failure. [url=]Peuterey Outlet[/url]

  • 248. .223 ammo for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    I just like the helpful info you supply for your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and check once more right here frequently.
    I’m reasonably certain I’ll be told many new
    syuff right right here! Best of luck for the

    my homepage – .223 ammo for sale

  • 249. Brian  |  April 17, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Today, I went to the beachfront with my children.
    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year oldd
    daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She
    placed the shell to her ear and screamed.
    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to ggo back!
    LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

    Also visit my web blog – completely free sugar daddy dating sites – Brian

  • 250. bullets for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    great issues altogether, you simply gained a emblem new reader.
    What might you recommend about your submit that you
    made a few days ago? Any sure?

    Here is my web blog … bullets for sale

  • 251. Donna Collins  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    I do not write a leave a response, but after reading through some of the responses here Equality On TrialA morning cuppa Prop 8 Equality
    On Trial. I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s allright.

    Is it only me or does it look as if like a few of these responses come across as if they are written
    by brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are writing at additional sites, I’d like to keep up
    with you. Would you make a list of all of your
    public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

    my blog post Donna Collins

  • 252.  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Ahaa, its nice discussion concerning this post at this place at this
    website, I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting here.

  • 253. Monica Mckenzie  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    Wow, this paragraph is nice, my sister is analyzing these kinds
    of things, so I am going to let know her.

    my page; Monica Mckenzie

  • 254. Anonymous  |  April 29, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search
    Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some
    targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results. If you
    know of any please share. Thanks!

    Visit my weblog – Paddy o

  • 255. Kathy Johnson  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Exceptional post however I was wanting to know
    if you could write a litte more on this subject? I’d be very thankful
    if you could elaborate a little bit more. Many thanks!

    Also visit my web site :: Kathy Johnson

  • 256. Sara Edwards  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to
    my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates.
    I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would
    have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything.
    I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

    Also visit my web blog; Sara Edwards

  • 257. invest in gold  |  May 10, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to bbe
    on the web the eassiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just do nott know about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whyole thing without having side effect , people can take a
    signal. Will likkely be back to get more. Thanks

    Feel free to surf to my web site: invest in gold

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