Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

The “Witt Standard”: Former Major Margaret Witt’s DADT trial resumes Monday

DADT trial

(Cross-posted at LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

Margaret WittFormer Air Force Major Margaret Witt made national headlines recently when Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan discussed the significance of the “Witt Standard” during her confirmation hearings. The “Witt Standard” was also peppered throughout Judge Virginia Phillips’ decision Thursday declaring Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional in the federal lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans.

On Monday, Sept. 13, the lesbian for whom the “Witt Standard” was named will be back in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington court as the decorated U.S. Air Force flight nurse continues to challenge her discharge under DADT. Witt is seeking re-instatement. The trial is expected to last seven days.

Scheduled to testify on Thursday is DADT expert Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.” Frank was also an expert witness in the Log Cabin Republican’s case before Judge Phillips. In an email to me Thursday night, Frank said this about Phillip’s ruling:

“This judge looked at an enormous amount of factual evidence about this case–over 400 pages of carefully documented data presented by the LCR lawyers, White & Case. And she found that, as many have been saying for years, the policy serves no legitimate governmental purpose, and in fact it is harmful to the military and our troops. This is the most powerful statement yet that DADT is unconstitutional, as well as bad law, and that our country has moved well beyond it.”

White House spokesperson Shin Inouye told LGBT POV:

“The Justice Department is studying the [Phillips] decision, including the question of its scope and immediate effect and we expect them to announce their next steps after that review is completed. The President remains committed to legislative repeal of DADT, and he will continue to work with lawmakers to achieve that goal this fall. And he will continue to work closely with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on an ongoing study of how to best implement the repeal.”

The Witt case goes back to trial just as the Senate goes back to work – and presumably takes up the Defense Authorization Bill with DADT repeal legislation included. Hopefully the Witt and LCR cases will add momentum to what appears to be inevitable and not cost taxpayers any more in the Justice Department racking up unnecessary court costs.

Here’s a 2008 interview with Witt by station KXLY:

Witt has some hypothetical, post hoc rationalization in general, but whether a justification exists for the application of the policy as applied to Major Witt.”

The military has provided no evidence that her sexual orientation or conduct has caused a problem in the performance of her military duties. To the contrary, the ACLU has submitted declarations from military colleagues testifying that her forced absence is harmful to her unit’s morale.

Representing Major Witt are ACLU-WA Legal Director Sarah Dunne and Sher Kung, a Perkins Coie Fellow, and ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys James Lobsenz of Carney Badley Spellman and Aaron Caplan of Loyola Law School. In a previous ACLU case, Lobsenz represented Army Sgt. Perry Watkins, who challenged his dismissal from the military for being gay. In 1989, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that, as a matter of fairness, the Army could not discharge Watkins.


Tags: ,


  • 1. Dpeck  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I'm first? No way!

  • 2. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:17 am


  • 3. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Lt. Dan Choi on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
    “Landmark ruling on ‘Don't ask, don't tell’”
    (September 10)

    — ♂KF

  • 4. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Found Dan Choi on Countdown on YouTube (September 10):

  • 5. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:18 am


  • 6. Ronnie  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:07 am

    It's always witty to say something about the Witt Standard….so here it goes…..Those against Equality are nitWITTs…..& are going to lose….mmmmmmuahahahaha…

    no seriously…I'm subscribing…..furthermore…this is why this blog is so great…I didn't know about this case & now I learned something new over the last 2 days…I hope this & the LCR ruling does give the repeal of DADT momentum…

    What we Want?…..EQUALITY!….When do we want it?…NOW!!!!…& we will not settle for anything less then FULL!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

  • 7. AndrewPDX  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:22 am

    LOL You beat me to the witty puns 🙂

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 8. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Ronnie, I so agree with you about this blog being so great because of what we learn (and because of the caring of each member). Glad I was not the only one who had not heard of this case (nor did I know about the LCR case until reading about it here.

    And, in addition, I've learned so much about the discrimination each of you face in just living your lives. You are all very strong and I applaud each of you.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 9. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Stirring the pot.

    Double double, toil and trouble
    Fire burn and cauldron bubble….

    The 9th Circuit decision was 2008. Does anyone know why this is only coming back to the District Court now… is this the normal time lag for such things?

  • 10. bJason  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Now you've made me take out "the Scottish Play" again.

    Out damned spot! Out, I say!

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:57 am

    And who will play the villains? Mayhaps Maggie, Brian, and Louis?

  • 12. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I can see Maggie as Lady M, pushing Brian along as Mac, making him kill the king…

    Louis can play the Porter – the drunken doorman of Macbeth’s castle.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:23 am

    IIRC, there was some kind of battle going on over trying to get evidence from the feds… or something like that. I remember reporting on this case in comments a long time ago. Also, recall that I asked early on in the LCR case if the judge was relying on Witt to hold the feds to a higher standard of review? (and the answer was yes). I STILL haven't read the LCR decision, so I'm not sure to what extent the holding in the DADT case depends on the standard of review established in Witt. If it's very much, it could be one of the weaknesses of the case when it goes to appeal, not at the 9th, but with the SC.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm


    I see your point, but Phillips had not choice but to apply Witt, since it is 9th Circuit precedent…. and won't be tested at SCOTUS until Witt is re-tried… Have I got that right?

  • 15. Kathleen  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    That's right. Phillips was absolutely correct to apply the Witt standard. It is binding precedent in the 9th Circuit. The standard could be reviewed by the Supreme Court when/if either case (LCR or Witt) goes to the Supreme Court. In other words, if the LCR case goes to the Supremes and gets there before Witt, the Court could rule on the standard in the context of that case.

  • 16. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Darn, and I was gonna sneak in and leave cookies for everyone if I got in first.

    Good for Witt, she sounds quite the reasonable, well thought out, clear and congenial spokesperson for the cause in that interview. I love the fact that she just wants to get on with doing her job. She is not asking for special favors or anything, just to get back to doing the job she is obviously incredibly well suited for.

    I wish that all the folks who are so against us could meet someone like that and see that we are just all folks together, just like everyone else.

  • 17. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:12 am

    Plus, she is cute!

  • 18. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    I think Judge Phillips is cute! She looks kinda like Harry Potter in the NYT photo.

  • 19. Dpeck  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Hmm. We could all step out for a minute and then come back in after you've left the cookies. Just give us the 'all clear'.

  • 20. Anonygrl  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Nope… sorry.. if I am not first, I cannot be the cookie fairy. A shame, really, because in addition to REALLY good cookies, I have a FABULOUS set of wings.

    Sad, I know, but there it is.

  • 21. Dpeck  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Fair enough. OK, I was first this time, so I'll step up & bring the cookies. Today's offering is the wonderfully exotic pineaple cake cookie from Kowloon. I travel there on business often and I frequently bring these back. They are similar to a Fig Newton,but with a gooey pineapple filling instead of figs. Enjoy!

  • 22. AndrewPDX  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:24 am

    mmm Kowloon pineapple cookies… sound good!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 23. Dpeck  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:12 am

    BTW I think there is a glaring typo in the seventh paragraph, just below the embedded Youtube video.
    I think this: "the military must prove that the discharge actually hurts morale and unit cohesion" should say "HELPS" instead of "HURTS".

    The military has to prove that discharging her is necessary for maintaining morale and unit cohesion. We all know that it actually hurts these things and it doesn't help them.

  • 24. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:03 am

    It should read that the military must prove that the conduct which led to the discharge actually hurt morale and unit cohesion. The military cannot prove that because it is not true.

  • 25. Eden James  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I informed Karen and she corrected the phrasing to the following: "the discharged person hurts morale and unit cohesion."

  • 26. Eden James  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Oh, and thanks Dpeck!

  • 27. Bob  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Woot Woot to Witt

  • 28. Don in Texas  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:07 am


    You can find the email addresses of Major Witt's lawyers at the bottom of page 27 of the pdf file concerning the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. There are three attorneys: Jacobenz , Dunne and Caplan.

    I've tried for the past half hour, but I cannot get the link to open. Maybe you'll have more luck.

  • 29. Bob  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:23 am

    same problem for me, can't open,

  • 30. queerfaithnews  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:24 am

    A great victory for GLBT Americans. A lot of faith leaders are supporting the repeal of DADT also:

  • 31. Straight Grandmother  |  September 13, 2010 at 1:58 am

    This is really nice especially since Harry Knox is on President Obama's Faith Based Initiatives panel.
    From the article,
    "Harry Knox of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships praised the recent ruling that declared “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be unconstitutional by acknowledging the ruling as “a vindication of the tireless efforts of advocates over the last 17 years.”

    Maybe if he bumps into Obama in the Hallway he can give him a talking to.

  • 32. Bob  |  September 13, 2010 at 2:53 am

    what do you mean, maybe if, Harry Knox should be hunitng Obama down in the halls, for every chance he can get to grab him by the balls and squeeze,

    Obama, used that Faith Based Initiatives, even expanded it, so Harry Knox, is in a pime position, to stand up for affirming faiths, and give O, a lesson or two, on Cino's, cause Obama has some things to learn about theology,

    Woot Woot to Harry Knox

  • 33. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Note to US Department of Defense and the US Air Force, USMC, USNavy, USArmy, and USCG: Do the RIGHT thing for once–reinstate Major Witt, and all of the other officers and enlisted personnel you have discharged under this discriminatory, archaic policy.

  • 34. draNgNon  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:00 am

    I'd love to see everyone reinstated.

    including those straight cowards who decided to claim they were Teh Ghey in order to get out of deploying to a combat zone.

    now that hurts unit cohesion

  • 35. Straight Grandmother  |  September 13, 2010 at 1:51 am

    "Teh Ghey "
    ha ha, you crack me up…

  • 36. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 12, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Note to self: Click button to subscribe BEFORE clicking button to submit! Must have been my Homer Simpson moment–DOH!

  • 37. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:00 am

    This is probably a little too late (if wasn't posted in August on P8TT) and not on topic here, but I recall there was a lot of cheering about Ken Mehlman's coming out.  Let's see what Countdown's Keith Olbermann had to say about it in his “GOP spreading fear, hate” bit (link to MSNBC video).

    — ♂KF

  • 38. Sheryl Carver  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Here's the WA site of the ACLU, Witt case:

    There's a link under "RELATED LINKS" (approx. mid-page) to a blog that is supposed to have daily reports on the courtroom. I clicked on it, but it's not loading yet. (No surprise.)

  • 39. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:56 am

    The dilemma that is the Log Cabin Republicans

    "Right now, the House has passed the repeal of DADT and is waiting for the Senate to get up and do the same. The only problem is, Republican opposition to the measure is permanently stalling all efforts. In response, the Log Cabin Republicans spend a lot of time on their website criticizing Obama for his broken promise to repeal DADT.

    Excuse me? Did any of you Log Cabin Republicans vote for Obama?"

    DADT Win Can't Save Log Cabin Republicans

  • 40. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:03 am

    I can't help but wonder if it is that type of scorn for the LCR that is behind the dearth of coverage this trial received until it was over.

  • 41. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

    What's the word I'm looking for…. ironic?

    Since creating change from with is a 2080 project, sponsoring this legal challenge is one of the best things they can do for their constituency…

  • 42. Ray in MA  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Another twist:

    Gay Soldiers Escort Gaga to VMAs

    Go Gaga!

  • 43. Ray in MA  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:44 am

    and the toops go gaga for Gaga…

  • 44. draNgNon  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:12 am

    that was so awesome I linked to it in twitter

  • 45. Ray in MA  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Not to confuse anyone, I didn't mean to imply this was a sequence of events!

  • 46. Ray in MA  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:21 am

    5,695,279 of you may have know this was last April.

    5,695,279 !!!!!

  • 47. Ronnie  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Lady Gaga's 2010 MTV VMAs Acceptance speech for Best Female Video….shout out to teh Gays…YAY GAGA!!!!!!

  • 48. Ronnie  |  September 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    & here is Lady Gaga accepting her 1st 2 awards of the night, Best Dance Video & Best Collaboration, & talking about her support for SLDN (Service-members Legal Defense Network) repeal of DADT, her escorts, & ends w/" & No one person is more valuable then another person"… I <3 Gaga…She is f@#king FIERCE!!!!…take that fundies…you gonna lose….mmmmmuahahahaha…EQUALITY NOW!!!!…<3…Ronnie:…!

  • 49. chris84wa (Spokane,  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    I've been following this case for years and can't believe this is happening in my state. With friends and family in the military, it seems unreal that someone with high recommendations and awards could be let go on something so petty. Why do people define a person only by their sexuality?

    Also on the note of states – why are marriage rights up to the states, but when it comes to the military – it is up to the federal government and NOT the states?

  • 50. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Marriage has traditionally been defined by each state. There is not much reason for a federal standard, except for immigration matters, which is one of the only areas where the federal government might second-guess a legitimate state marriage between a man and a woman.

    And until DOMA, there was pretty much no other area where the federal law tried to override a marriage determination that had been made by a state.

  • 51. Fulton  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Loving v Virginia?

  • 52. rf  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Loving and all SCOTUS marriage decisions just mean that state marriage laws have to comply with and are subordinate to the US constitution.

  • 53. Ann S.  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:37 am

    RF, I agree. Thanks for adding that.

  • 54. Ann S.  |  September 12, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    I meant to also add that DADT is not really a marriage issue per se — it affects married and unmarried LGBT servicemembers.

  • 55. draNgNon  |  September 13, 2010 at 3:21 am

    well, I guess; but it's quite odd that a servicemember can be legally married and yet not only NOT designate his/her spouse as next of kin for notifications, etc, but moreover get discharged for exercising that right.

    the landscape surely has changed in the last 16 years.

    let's imagine the unimaginable victory: Prop 8 goes to SCOTUS and gets overturned in a broad ruling. if DADT is still in place in that situation, that would be tragic.

  • 56. Ann S.  |  September 13, 2010 at 3:24 am

    let’s imagine the unimaginable victory: Prop 8 goes to SCOTUS and gets overturned in a broad ruling. if DADT is still in place in that situation, that would be tragic.

    Yes, it would, but that situation could not persist for long, I think. With several cases challenging DADT proceeding through the court system, then the same SCOTUS that issued the broad ruling you are positing would soon throw out DADT if Congress doesn't get there first.

  • 57. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I…can't believe I didn't know about it. It's in WA?! I'm near about 8 naval and army bases and I didn't know. I feel like such a horrible ally.

    Do you know where I can catch up on the trial so far?

  • 58. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 13, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Rhie, it isn't your fault. This case has not really received the coverage it deserved. And you can catch up on it at, where they have the transcripts and everything.

  • 59. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Thanks for that! I will definitely check it out. Wow, so many things I wouldn't have known about except for this forum.

    This is definitely an example of an awesome thing coming out of a bad decision.

  • 60. Sheryl Carver  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:32 am


    If you mean the Witt trial, check out the WA ACLU site for starters. There may be more elsewhere.

    I think Richard thought you meant the DADT trial brought by the Log Cabin Republicans in Riverside, CA.

  • 61. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Immigration reform. Not going to make anyone's morning, but it has a long way to go. Please don't shoot the messenger :(.

    "Rodriguez rejected the argument that opposing gay marriage provisions in an immigration overhaul constituted homophobia. Rather, he said, the choice was between excluding gay and lesbian families from an overhaul of immigration laws – or losing out on an overhaul altogether. "

    Immigration overhaul could leave gay couples out

  • 62. Franck  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Guh, thank you for reminding me not to shoot the messenger. I was in a good mood before reading that article, reading it depressed me… and reading the comments made my blood flash to the boiling point. I had to leave my desk or else I'd have thrown loud curses at the screen…

    I know I've become very prone to bouts of depression lately. Maybe I should stop reading these articles altogether. I already spend so much time dwelling on how I have next to zero solution right now, I certainly don't need more reasons to despair.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1179 days, as of today.

  • 63. Sagesse  |  September 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    I'm so sorry about that. However, the reality is that immigration reform is a next year thing. There are many twists and turns ahead. It would be nice if they could find a way to pass the LGBT families piece separately, but not sure how practical that is.

    However, the situation is no worse than it was yesterday, just because the WP decided to write about it.

  • 64. Franck  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Yes, I know the situation hasn't changed overnight… It's just that when you're living pretty much on hope, being reminded of some stark realities can be harsh.

    I'm feeling much better now though. Whoever says I shouldn't cheat at work to exchange a few words with C. every single afternoon (before he has to run out to school) doesn't know just how much good these few minutes do me.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1179 days, as of today.

  • 65. Kate  |  September 12, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Franck, those few minutes keep you alive. If someone criticized you for doing that, they clearly don't know what sort of personal hell you and C. are in right now. My heart goes out to you.

  • 66. AndrewPDX  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:18 am

    @Franck… I can only imagine how difficult the waiting game is for you. Please, don't give up hope, cuz that's all we got. That, and this community here, so come and vent and we'll listen… we've even got cookies… and here's some MILK for you too:

    HOPE will never remain silent

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:31 am


  • 68. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:37 am

    I chose NOT to share that article with my partner! He lives day to day with a hope (sometimes no hope) that this aspect of immigration will be solved sooner than later. So absolutely annoying and frustrating!!!! (and D.U.M.B!!!)

  • 69. Kathleen  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Hugs, Franck. I think of you and all of the other multi-national couples all the time. Immigration reform isn’t the only possible legal relief. If we can get DOMA invalidated through the courts or, better yet, if the feds come to their senses and repeal DOMA sooner – that should also bring equality to immigration issues.

  • 70. Joel  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Well here we are. Monday morning. When will we know if Maldonado is going to file or not? Is the deadline this morning or this evening?

  • 71. Kate  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:26 am

    I think the consensus, unfortunately, is that the deadline isn't until midnight.

  • 72. Kathleen  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I don't know for certain. But my GUESS would be midnight tonight. Sorry I don't have time right now to search for the answer; maybe someone else has an authoritative answer.

  • 73. Kate  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Just found this. I hope these people end up pissing Maldonado off during the crisis in San Bruno. Ha ha– he left off the last digit in the campaign office phone number!

    John Eastman for California Attorney General Today's the deadline for Acting Governor Abel Maldonado to file the appeal in the Prop 8 litigation. Call his office this morning and every hour today and urge him to do the right thing. A case this important deserves full consideration by the appellate courts.
    Office: 916-445-8994; Campaign Office: 831-759-257

  • 74. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Speaking of the San Bruno gas pie explosion, I saw in a report that I was right about the cause of the explosion. The gas pipes have been there since 1948 and this is what it took to get them replaced.

  • 75. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:43 am

    OOPS! That was supposed to read "gas pipe," not "gas pie." hey, WordPress, how about putting an edit feature in for us, please?

  • 76. Kate  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:49 am

    I liked “gas pie.” The images this conjures!

  • 77. Anonygrl  |  September 13, 2010 at 1:01 am

    I was thinking of a recipe that included something like baked beans in a pie crust… maybe in individual sized servings. It would be sort of like a chicken pot pie, but gassier.

    That might be tasty, actually.

    Rrecipe for Gas Pie

    Fry up some sliced kielbasa (or hot dogs, if you insist, but kielbasa has better spices) and onions, mix in with the baked beans or your choice, spoon into cup sized pie shells, top with pie crust, pierce the crust a couple of times and bake till golden brown. Instead of kielbasa, you could use portobella mushrooms, if you were vegetarian.

    Serve with hot mulled cider.

    That would make a good solid warm meal.

    Hmph. Now I am hungry.

  • 78. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Thanks, Anonygrl. That one is going into the P8TT Family Cookbook.

  • 79. John  |  September 13, 2010 at 12:41 am

    About 8-16 hrs left that the Lt. Gov can file an appeal of Prop 8.

  • 80. rf  |  September 13, 2010 at 1:11 am

    A month ago a lot of people were complaining that prop8 couldn't be appealed because of the standing issue. I'm in the camp that would prefer there is no standing/no appeal and Cali gets marriage equality back in December. BUT, if there is an appeal, then we deal with it. The plan for most(altho who knows what Boies and Olsen's real master plan is) was to go to SCOTUS anyway.

  • 81. Phillip R  |  September 13, 2010 at 3:29 am

    While, the possibilities of the Supreme Court seem within reach, I think I'd rather take a sure win at the state level over a questionable win at the federal level. I'm at odds at the split of the Supremes and whether it would end up in our favor.

    One in the hand, two in the bush kinda deal I guess.

  • 82. rf  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:12 am

    and by a lot of people, I mean, lgbt peole and their allies. people here.

  • 83. Don in Texas  |  September 13, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I agree that David Boies and Ted Olsen planned to take the challenge to Proposition 8 all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I recall reading they had determined that the lengthy state-by-state approach to marriage equality was unacceptable because same-sex couples are being denied every day the liberty guaranteed by the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments.

    (The 5th amendment applies to the federal government, the 14th applies to the states.)

  • 84. John  |  September 13, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Lt Gov. has until 6pm tonight to file an appeal of prop 8.

  • 85. celdd  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Good to know, thanks!

  • 86. Ann S.  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Actually, I think it's midnight.

  • 87. John  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Since the appeals deadline fell on a weekend its 6pm according to the Northern California District Court clerk. It's not midnight.

  • 88. Ann S.  |  September 13, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Thank you, John, I am happy to have been wrong on that.

  • 89. Rhie  |  September 13, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Stupid question but…6p PST right?

    Oh, that's right at the beginning of Rachel's show and she is good about grabbing breaking news, especially as it relates to LGBT.

  • 90. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 13, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Local update on the Witt trial….sort of. Not much news really

  • 91. Sheryl Carver  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:35 am

    There's a more detailed article here:

  • 92. Free games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

  • 93. free stuff&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

  • 94. Tegaderm film 1626w&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    tegaderm film dressings…

    […]it si the time to visit or take a look at the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  • 95. tires rack&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    How to car repair…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 96. Woodworking Plans&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Steve’s Site…

    […] You are able to leave a reply, or trackback from your own webpage. Learn more via the original source: iHealthy: « Squidoo blog Share and […]…

  • 97. Nikon D7000 test&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Blog Browser…

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

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