Is This Case Really Heading For the Supreme Court? Definitely Maybe.

February 1, 2010

by Brian Leubitz

Throughout this whole case, everybody has been assuming that the ultimate audience is the Supreme Court. But that is a big assumption, relatively few cases make it to the Supremes every year. In fact, in the 2008-2009 term, there were over 10,000 petitions for writ of certiorari filed. Yet the court only filed 83 full opinions. Another few hundred appellants had some action taken upon their cases, but for most litigants, the response from the Supreme Court is usually just a lot of silence filed by a short “no.” It is considered a very high honor for a lawyer if one of their cases is accepted.

So, why then, have we been assuming that this case will get there? Sure, it’s a big social issue, and the case is high profile owing to the two big-name lawyers, but even Boies and Olson can’t guarantee access to The Court. And there is some reason to believe that we may not even get there at all. Prof. Vikram David Amar has a good analysis of the first couple weeks of the trial, some of which I will cover later, but there is one portion that goes to explaining this question.

This case is, as noted above, destined for the Ninth Circuit. But whether it goes any farther depends on what the Ninth Circuit does. If the Ninth Circuit (either through a three-judge panel or the whole court sitting en banc) rules in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidates Proposition 8, then the Supreme Court may very well feel it must take the case, since same-sex marriage would be a federal right west of Rockies but not in most other parts of the country. But if the Ninth Circuit rejects the plaintiffs’ claims, don’t expect the Supreme Court to take the up the issue of same-sex marriage anytime soon. Still, when the Justices do address some future anti-same-sex-marriage measure enacted into law by a state — and down the road, they may have to do so — they’ll have the benefit of the trial record in the Proposition 8 case, as well the opinions and/or evidence from other cases that will have been decided in the interim. (FindLaw)

The tough part of being a plaintiff in this case? We have to win at least 2 of 3 for any substantive change to ensue. I suppose we could, in a legal sense, afford a loss at the trial court. However, if we lose at the 9th Circuit, there is a very good chance that the Supreme Court won’t even take this case. After all, why would they use up their political capital when they don’t need to?

I suppose at this point, we should explain the process for accepting cases to the Supreme Court. Four justices need to sign on to the writ of cert. to bring the case to the Supreme Court. 8 of the 9 Justices use what is known as the “cert pool” where all of the clerks combine forces to produce summaries of the cases before them, why they should be granted cert, and why they shouldn’t be granted cert. Justice John Paul Stevens has his clerks review all of the cases. Now, this case will be so big by the time it gets to the cert pool, the calculus is very different than your typical case. Certainly if we win at the 9th Circuit, there would be four votes to bring the case forward. But if we lose? Now, voting for cert doesn’t necessarily mean the justice wants to overturn the appelate court’s ruling, it could mean any number of things, including the need to settle a dispute between appellate circuits. It is hard not to try to read tea leaves from cert petitions, but it’s a very inexact science, and shouldn’t be tried by the casual observer.

In the end, we must take each step day by day. Justice has been known to move slowly on occasion.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Lodestar First episodes of trial re-enactment

1660183 Comments2010-02-02+01%3A00%3A26Brian+Leubitz Leave a Comment

1. Straight Ally #3008 | February 1, 2010 at 10:15 am

If the Ninth Circuit (either through a three-judge panel or the whole court sitting en banc) rules in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidates Proposition 8, then the Supreme Court may very well feel it must take the case, since same-sex marriage would be a federal right west of Rockies but not in most other parts of the country.

Help me out, lawyers. Isn't it also possible that the Ninth Circuit Court will rule narrowly, so that Prop 8 fails but it only impacts California, where it originated?
2. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 10:19 am

Yes, but at the same time, we still need to be prepared for this to at least go to the 9th Circuit, which means we really should prepare as if we are going to argue this before the Supremes. That is only right. Prepare 150% for this, and then we willbe better prepared to cover all the bases. In addition, whether you live in California or not, start an Equality Team in your area. The folks at Courage Campaign will be there to guide you through every step of the process, and they are great folks to have on your side.
3. Brian Leubitz | February 1, 2010 at 10:20 am

I suppose there could be a small grounds where they say you can't take away that which the community already had. But such a decision would really be awkward, and a really big stretch. It's really hard to argue that it's unequal under the federal constitution in California but not in Nevada. I'm not sure we would really even want such a result.

So, in all likelihood, if the 9th Circuit overturns Prop 8, it will go to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, who knows?
4. Richard W. Fitch | February 1, 2010 at 10:36 am

What geographical area does the 9th District encompass?
5. Richard W. Fitch | February 1, 2010 at 10:37 am

I guess I should say 9th Circuit.
6. JeffSD | February 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

Heres the map: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_i…

AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, WA
7. cc | February 1, 2010 at 10:47 am

Oh this made me sad, but I'll keep my fingers crossed! Anyways time to cheer me up with some good old fashion sing along with We Can't Turn the Lights Out Now!
8. Matt N | February 1, 2010 at 11:03 am

Maybe a crazy question, but if the federal law ended up being different in those states, how would it be applied.

I'm thinking mostly about immigration law. Would it be based on your entry point to the US, where you intend to live, or where your paperwork is processed?

For example, say you are in H1B status, your same-sex spouse wants to get an H4. You live in WA state, but cross the border in Michigan?

Say you are applying for permanent residence based on employment. You live in WA state, but the paperwork is mailed to Nebraska. What would happen?
9. Felyx | February 1, 2010 at 11:07 am

Another question regarding Federal Recognition…

What will happen if Congress doesn't invalidate the DC Marriage ammendment?

Would it's passage, an implicit Federal recognition of SSM, be in direct conflict with DOMA?

I am curious to know how this would impact things.

Thank you.
10. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 11:34 am

I'm sorry…and you guys might find me really stupid for saying/asking this….

I read this list from JeffSD and said "what's GU" I went to the link and saw that it was Guam, so I asked "Guam is a state?" What? Since When?

DON"T JUDGE ME!!!!!!!
11. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 11:37 am

Hey folks:

It is here!!
part TWO of the prop 8 trial re-enactents.

this video includes the witness testimony of our side on day one….

now you can see the opening statements AND the first day of witnesses

tell em Dieter sent ya…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDiFT_CWwE
12. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 11:38 am

dont think the links are working in here: so you can go to youtube and find the videos of the case under Marriage trial
or marriagetrial.com
13. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Doesn't this article essentially say we lost either way?..I mean if the 9th circuit shoots it down we lose. but if the 9th circuit agrees and this goes to the supreme court, it is clear we will lose there as well because no way in Hell are the republican appointed judges EVER going to vote for gay rights or ANYTHING obama wants.

so either way..we lost.
14. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Not if he fires them before it gets there which is very likely since the majority of the country has said to SCOTUS and D.C. what the FUCK were you thinking with that recent crack whore on a politician ruling…..LOL
15. Straight Ally #3008 | February 1, 2010 at 12:49 pm

i•ro•ny, n.

Plaintiffs prevail in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Ninth Circuit Court upholds the ruling, and the Supreme Court declines to hear the case; same-sex marriage legalized in California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

(Hey, it's not impossible….who thought "The Terminator" would be governor of California?)
16. Misken | February 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Guam is a territory.
17. Misken | February 1, 2010 at 12:56 pm

they are working fine for me
18. Misken | February 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Haha, think of the irony. Those people who voted Yes on 8 actually voted to legalize SSM on the entire west coast (assuming your scenario plays out that way). haha…
19. Misken | February 1, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Too bad Utah aint part of the 9th circuit.
20. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Thank you…I thought I was losing my mind…and was like I never got that quarter….hahahah
21. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Now you are really going to think I'm stupid….What are the Mariana Islands?…I'm too tired to google (if you can believe it)

DON"Y JUDGE ME!!!!!!!
22. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:10 pm

hahah DON"T JUDGE ME…Now that's a typo
23. JiminMn | February 1, 2010 at 1:10 pm

While I think the above points are logical and thought provoking when taken as a whole. But as mentioned we ate dealing with the 9th circuit and that is most certainly the ellusive and telling part in how this will play out on this cases (in my belief) journey to SCOTUS. When you examine the make up of the 9th circuit and it's history regarding this sort of case you quickly see it's very liberal slant. The chances the will uphold to upcoming ruling invalidating prop 8 are great. If western united states is allowed marriage equality we will undoubtably find this before SCOTUS. I plan on keeping my hopes high and my daily advocacy even higher. When you look at the obstacles prop 8 needs to navigate if not completely cicimvent it's easy to see why NOM (ie Maggie gallagher) is so discouraged. That's worth twice it's political weight in hope.
24. JiminMn | February 1, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Regarding federal recognition. If the 9th invalidates prop 8 and applies marriage equality across the western u.s. It will not effect federal laws(including immigration) until either DOMA is overturned or SCOTUS invalidates it….
25. Kathleen | February 1, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Ronnie said (re Supreme Court Justices): "Not if he fires them before it gets there which is very likely"

Maybe you meant this as a joke, but you do know the President can't fire the Justices, right? Appointments to the SC are for life.
26. Dave T | February 1, 2010 at 1:27 pm

I guess that's true if the 9th Circuit invalidates it (although it leaves a HUGE contradiction in the law).

What if SCOTUS invalidates prop 8? Would that implicitly overturn DOMA?
27. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:28 pm

No I didn't mean it as a joke…I heard it on the news…I don't remember exactly what they said, but it had something to do with 2 of the conservative judges being removed because of the ruling about big business sponsoring campaigns or something like that….I know that whole for life thing…thats why I found it weird that it was mentioned but it seems like there is a lot going on in D.C. that is not traditional or conventional….to be honest…

I'm a scarededed!…That the gov is completely falling apart.
28. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Kathleen, you are correct that the justices are appointed for life, but there is talk that Ginsberg and Stevens may be retiring at the end of the 2009 term. Stevens has only hired one clerk for 2010 term, which is the number of clerks for retired justices. Active justices have four clerks minimum. And Ginsberg may be stepping down due to health issues. This would give President Obama the chace to appoint wo new justices to SCOTUS. So we may not necessarily have the 5-4 going against us. We may end up with 5-4 in our favor or even 6-3 in our favor. We can always hope.
29. Kathleen | February 1, 2010 at 1:36 pm

SC Justices can only be removed through an impeachment process, similar to impeaching the president. It's been a long time since I studies con law, but I think it involves the House bringing articles of impeachment and then a trial in the Senate. In the history of the country, there has only been one SC Justice impeached, in the early 19th Century, and he was acquitted by the Senate.

I'd be curious to know what the news report was. The country, as an institution, has withstood much more grave challenges than it faces now. But we're going to be living with the consequences of multiple Republican terms of office for a loooooong time.
30. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Ronnie, trust me. The government has been falling apart since 1776, and they still find ways to patch it together. We are safe in that respect (Well, if you call that safe, we are, at any rate).
31. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:41 pm

I think that might of been what I heard or at least apart of it.
32. Kathleen | February 1, 2010 at 1:43 pm

Oh! maybe the news report Ronnie saw was discussion of possible retirement by two justices. That would make sense. I've been hearing the same reports. Unfortunately Stevens and Ginsberg are both part of the liberal voting block, so even if Obama gets to replace them, it won't change the basic composition of the current Court. On the other hand, if they're going to retire soon, best to do while there's a Dem president or we're reeeeeeaaaaly screwed.
33. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm

thats another part of what I heard….case in point most people in D.C. were not happy with that ruling repubs and dems…..they are shouting for blood and Obama did mention it in his address….impeachment sounds right but I don't think there will be much of a fight.
34. Santa Barbara Mom | February 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm

I have felt so good since the trial, but if this is the reality then it is so disheartening.
35. Matt in Seattle | February 1, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Dieter –

Justice Stevens is a republican appointee, and I don't doubt he would rule to overturn Prop 8. Justice Kennedy is also a republican appointee, and he wrote the decisions in Lawrence and Romer.

I find it disheartening that many of the advocates of marriage equality paint all the Justice on the Supreme Court as being opponents of glbt rights. We have some wonderful and vocal allies on the bench.

A favorable decision out of the Supreme Court would be amazing, but is far from the herculean task many seem to think it is.
36. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Santa Barbara Mom, please don't give up hope yet. We have only begun to fight. And everyone I have met here on the P8TT site has given me one more reason to not only update my status on FB, but to join the P8TT group on FB, and start the first Courage Campaign Equality Team in North Carolina. And you are one of the great people I have met. And I will be damned if I am going to givv up now, just because there are some struggles. My whole life has been a struggle in one way or another, and since those struggles did not kill me, I guess they only made me stronger. And I will NOT go back into the closets. My clothes belong in a closet, but I don't, and neither does any other human being, no matter what Team George, or Mark, or Andy Re-Pug-NO say. I quit letting mere mortal men rule me when I left my adoptive "father's" house. And I will not return to tht sort of servitude, degradation, and abuse EVER AGAIN! And when I stand up, get counted, and fight, it will be with the names of everyone I have met here on my lips, and that includes you. You and my adoptive mom would have gotten along famously. You remind me so much of her. And if you are on FB, look me up. I just started a new topic on the P8TT group's page about the need for more Equality Teams outside of the California State borders. And I definitely want to stay in touch with everybody from here, including you. You are a definite credit to the human race. Keep your chin up. We aren't giving up that easily.
37. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Oh, that would just be the sweetest of ironies!
38. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Jesus Chist of Latter Days Saints….BWAAAAA!!!!
39. Matt in Seattle | February 1, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Richard,

Do you think both Stevens and Ginsberg would step down at the same time? My feeling is that one will retire after this year and the other the following year, giving Obama 3 appointees in 3 years.

One can only hope that Obama is in office past 2012 and in a position to appoint 1 more Justice. Scalia and Kennedy will each be 76 in 2012 and Breyer will be 74.
40. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 2:19 pm

See this is the thing that people forget when the say Obama will not serve a 2nd term…Regardless of what hes done in only 1 year(that whole he didn't do anything pisses me off, it's only been 1 year) He has the Gay vote..because unless a repub. says I will legalize gay marriage they will not have the gay vote.. and Obama has the young vote….if that stays the same in 2012(theres that date again) he will win again
41. Santa Barbara Mom | February 1, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Thank you, Richard. Your kind words mean a lot to me. Funny, I was adopted too. I'm not currently on FB but am thinking that maybe I should be Last spring my oldest son was married; my youngest son broke down and shared with me the pain he feels in not being like his siblings, not being able to be married. As his mother, I feel his pain, this trial never leaves my mind.
42. Felyx | February 1, 2010 at 2:54 pm

IANAL But…

If SCOTUS rules that SSM is a civil right it will still leave a fine line as to what part of DOMA it would be in opposition.
If it only addresses the 14th Ammendment then only the first part of DOMA, the definition is in jeopardy but the second part, states requirements to give full faith and credit would not be necessarily in jeopardy. This of course would become somewhat of a moot point if all states were suddenly required to accept SSM. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that DOMA is a statute and not an actual constitutional ammendment. I think that that would require it to be directly challenged for it to be overturned, which in light of a favorable ruling by SCOTUS it would be easily so.

Point of interest…Congress is in the process of violating the DOMA act right now. WaDC has passed a SSM ammendment and Congress does not have the votes either way to do anything about it. What happens if Congress passes a law and then violates it? It will be an embarrassment to Congress and will leave it with a stark violation hanging over its collective head. There 'seems' to be no damage control on this one…either stall and remain uncredible or overturn repeal DOMA and declare it was not a sustainable law in the first place.

Last point, DOMA and most of the state DOMAs were passed before SSM was legalized in any state. But now that it is legal in one state, there is no turning back! SSM will not go away, and it cannot be so easily undone (as this trial is proving.) Once people taste freedom, especially Americans who are manic about the subject and the practice of it, they will be relentless until it is acheived for all. The SCOTUS knows this and has an excellent track record of promoting and upholding freedom (hence the 14th ammendment!) This is why gun laws will never be fully overturned, this is why due process and every other right will be vigorously upheld. Sure they have some exceptional blunders, but if we look at the entire history of SCOTUS rulings they are overwhelmingly in favor of freedom liberty and equality even against predjudice.

I for one am not counting us out at all. By the time this issue reaches the SCOTUS (not necessarily P8 but SSM in general) we will prevail. The social issue is too large and the concensus (even the elite global consensus) is in our favor. The question really is not if it will happen but how soon.

(On that note I am going to check out wedding rings…;P)
43. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Just an out there question.. Has anyone thought of relocating to Canada if this fails (like in SCOTUS fail)?

I don't know but I'm in middle age now and would love to live my life somewhere there is equality before I die. I'm not saying I would actually leave just a thought process I'm tossing about in my mind.
44. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 3:05 pm

NEVER!!!!!!!!!
45. Felyx | February 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm

I could move to Canada but only because here SSM will be universal before healthcare will be. HAHAHAHAHA!
46. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 3:12 pm

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whip lash!!!!! Key board meet face…BOAW! BOAW! BOAW!
47. Tasty Salamanders | February 1, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Not being an American I wasn't really aware of the what effects the ruling of the Ninth Circuit would be, but the fact that if we win there not only do we get Cali back but another 8 states is enough to make me happy if it doesn't get to the Supreme Court.

I mean that's 16 states that we would have then, 3 times as many as we have now, I know it terms of equality it isn't enough but it is a good start.
48. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm

HOw come all I see is a big empty square box in here?..like the videos or links won't work for me but seem to be working for the rest of you…?
grrrr……was working fine til recently….
maybe my settings somehow got messed up?….any ideas?…thanks
49. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 4:09 pm

lol..I am already packing. screw this third world country we live in now.
until all churches are banned and republicans receive shock therapy, we are doomed.
50. Dieter M. | February 1, 2010 at 4:12 pm

The supreme court will overrule it. They won't allow half the country to have federal rights that the other half doesnt have. and they will also not be ready to strip all 50 states of their current christian based philosophy. just to make the gays happy. they know that gays have no more power anymore, since their ruling to hand the country over to CHEVRON, and the churches.
51. Mark W | February 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Is it out of the question for the following to happen? Walker rules for plaintiffs, defendants appeal to 9th Circuit. 9th Circuit says "animus proven" and invalidates ONLY the results of the election, i.e, marriage is legal again in CA only unless and until there is a subsequent, non-animus driven election — a narrow finding but one that gives the plaintiffs relief without impacting other states. SCOTUS says, we're not interested in hearing. And the end result is temporary relief for plaintiffs until next heinous election over civil rights.
52. David Kimble | February 2, 2010 at 1:11 am

Very good question, Mark and I am not certain I have an answer for you, but here goes. I think, if the 9th Circuit rules in our favor, that would pave the way for other states in our region (i.e. – Oregon, Washington, etc. to be part of that ruling). It is interesting that you say, "ONLY the results of the election, i.e, marriage is legal again in CA only unless and until there is a subsequent, non-animus driven election — a narrow finding but one that gives the plaintiffs relief without impacting other states." I believe it is unlikely the Court would rule so narrowly, but I could be wrong.
53. Leslie Wilde | February 2, 2010 at 1:25 am

Mark W has it right, the 9th will likely throw out Prop 8 and their ruling will only affect California, and who knows if the SCOTUS will take the case, but only 4 Justices need to agree to take it and luckily there are 4 liberal justices.

Dieter, if the case does go to the SCOTUS it will likely be a 5-4 decision to throw out Prop 8. The court will split evenly on idealogy, 4 conservative Justices will vote to uphold Prop 8 (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas) and 4 liberal Justices will vote to throw out Prop 8 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Sotomeyer) the swing vote is Kennedy.

Kennedy is conservative but sometimes swings left on social issues, he wrote the majority opinion on Romer in Colorado and the Texas case legalizing sodomy between men. He is a good friend of Ted Olsen's, he even attended Ted's wedding in Napa, CA. Ted Olsen wouldn't have taken this case if he didn't think he could get 5 votes on the SCOTUS.
54. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 1:41 am

Ronnie, the Marianas are in the South Pacific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Islands
55. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 1:48 am

Sorry Dieter, I seriously disagree…upholding Prop 8 at the SCOTUS level would be disasterous. If CA SC rules to repeal and 9th rules to repeal and considering the massive change in consciousness…SCOTUS, especially in light of its past rulings, could not easily uphold the ban and be able to justify that decision against what it has previously said regarding the gay right to marry.

Also remember, our lawyers are serious professionals and knew what they were doing. By the time they even get to SCOTUS there will be further developments that will weigh heavily on the ruling. There is still DC to consider (does anyone at all know anything about this?!!!) There is the 9th circuit order for the Personel Dept to grant spousal rights to a lesbian and her partner (which is a direct challenge to DOMA.) There are currently cases making their way to just about every State SC in the Union…with all this in the works it would be, like I said, disasterous for SCOTUS to not take the issue seriously. (Serious…like the plaintiffs were and not like the defense pretended to be.)
56. John D | February 2, 2010 at 1:57 am

Ginsberg and Stevens are perhaps the two most liberal justices on the court (too early to judge on Sotomayor). If they were to leave the court before Perry reaches, the numbers remain the same.

Our best best for a change would be if Scalia or Thomas were to leave the court. Both are younger than Ginsberg and Stevens.

If only Sandra Day O'Connor had realized that William Renquist was terminally ill and that he was encouraging her thoughts of leaving to give George W. Bush two appointees.
57. george | February 2, 2010 at 2:06 am

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, w/ Kennedy as the swing vote. How does replacing Ginsberg and Stevens change that?
58. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:09 am

Oh ok…thanks Fiona….great movie…LOL
59. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 2:14 am

Ronnie, you're right. "South Pacific" was a beautiful film, and is an amazing musical. Let's have a look at one of the songs from "South Pacific," shall we?

This one goes out to Mark and George/Kay:

You've Got to Be Carefully Taught, by Rodgers & Hammerstein

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to Year
It's got to be drummed
in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
To be Afraid
Of people whose eyes
are oddly made
And people whose skin
Is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught

Love,
Fiona
60. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:14 am

To John D….Judge Sotomayor has a track record of ruling based on precedented court cases and not on personal agenda…that is why they fought so hard to stop her from getting appointed….She will see what we all see based on Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade and so on

Oh and look out everybody I think Curious George is back!
61. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 2:18 am

The 9th would have to find something seriously flawed with Walker's decision regarding discrimination in order to make such a ruling. 9th, from everything I have read, is fairly permissive in their rulings being more concerned with the procedure and manner of the lower courts handling of any case rather than so much the content of the case itself. (I.e. Did Walker follow procedure and is his opinion and ruling consistent with established legal methodology.) 9th Does not 'retry' the case in essence, it is more like it re-evaluates it for appropriateness and consistency.

I think the reverse is more likely…that Walker would uphold and the 9th would find the ruling very unsatisfactory and overturn to repeal. Then SCOTUS would probably really want to hear the case because there was significant disention among lower courts over such a prominent issue.

I still feel very optimistic regardless just because of the overwhelming amount of effort being applied intra-nationally as well as internationally! We are not going to drop the issue, not now, not ever!!!
62. george | February 2, 2010 at 2:22 am

I can't see how the trial judge can rule in plaintiff's favor, If you read the arguments on the D's motion for summary judgment, the only reason the rational basis standard of review was not ordered by the judge was because the defense neglected to address the 1st two of the 4-pronged test for determining the standard (the defense, essentially waived the first two prongs). The lack of political power prong is a loser for the Ps, and there was enough evidence against the immutability prong that no judge could reasonably find that a higher standard applies.

Once the rational standard is applied, P's burden to prove the irrationality of the voters is virtually insurmountable.

If the 9th Circuit rules for Ps, the SCOTUS will almost certainly take the case; the conservative justices would push for it.
63. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 2:24 am

I wonder that you are still speaking, Senor Benedick. Nobody marks you.

– Beatrice to Benedick in Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing"
64. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 2:24 am

I wouldn't rule Scalia out that fast either….his dissenting opinion in one gay related case was that civil rights were so fundamental that even gay marriage would be constitutional. When actually faced with the issue on which he opined (even in the context of a dissent) he may surprise us with moment of clarity and reason.

(I did not fact check so if I have misspoken then please forgive and clarify. Thank-you.)
65. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:34 am

Now all of a sudden curious george knows legal and political jargon….unfortunately it is all wrong because we clearly read about a different trial

Which personalty is this i wonder?

I do agree though if the seriousness of the situation is noticed it will go to SCOTUS but we will win….because they all know extreme violence will be next.

And civil rights violence always wins (look at our history)…we are just not ready to go that far…but they clearly are and in most cases already do and have.
66. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:35 am

hehehe….LOVES IT!!!!!
67. Happy | February 2, 2010 at 2:36 am

Wow Fiona – Great song choice. Back then they were talking about hating people with different looks. Now it's about the same thing for people with different loves.
68. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 2:40 am

Remember, Ronnie, we need to walk the path of Bayard Rustin (if you aren't sure who he is, look him up … he's someone that you should definitely know about as a gay man of color), Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ghandi. We don't have to lower ourselves to the level of George and his ilk, resorting to violence against people who are standing up for their right to exist and be treated equally in this great nation of ours. The only weapon they have is hatred, and love is a much greater weapon than that in the end.

Love,
Fiona
69. Happy | February 2, 2010 at 2:44 am

Santa Barbara Mom – It really touches me to read that you feel your son's pain when he says he can't marry. When I told my mom I was a lesbian she said she was OK with it, has welcomed my previous/current girlfriend(s) into her home, laughed and had fun with each one, but over the years she's given many hints that she's really not OK with who I am. I think when I marry my fiancee – and I say WHEN – she won't be happy for me, even though my mom really likes her. And that's a real bummer. I think she sees it as something like playing house. I wish she could understand that we and our relationship are every bit like her and her husbands have been – only ours is for life!

I LOVE YOU AMANDA!

- Happy
70. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 2:51 am

It does seem like a rediculous rational. The actually proof of political powerlessness is not as important as whether the judge feels in his opinion that there is reason to believe there is political powerlessness. And with the lack of conclusive scientific evidence the same is true for immutability. At this point, if the judge believe there is immutability just because people are so willing to stick to there guns even in the face of probably harm, then he is within his legal methodology to do so.

And of course the reason the defense waived the first two requirements of scrutiny is because they are undeniable and indefensible. They HAD to cling to the last two, immutability and powerlessness, in a desparate attempt to have a case against civil marriage rights. Otherwise, they would be argueing only on the rationality of voters which of course would be a nightmare in the face of the negative and misleading material promoted to influence voters. (Basically, some items were so disingenuous that they would be provable as completely false witness…i.e. Lies which would prove by its very existence animus in the vote.)

As for applying the 'rational standard', this is for the judge to decide…not the defense. the Judge may apply strict scrutiny and may rule that the plaintiffs have met the burden of proof. (Again, the proof does not require undeniable evidence as seen on L&O or CSI, proof here has to do with broad social proofs which may include beliefs, actions and standards found on a large sociological scale. This is why the plaintiffs attorneys voir dire'd regarding psychology, sociology, anthropology education as well as research done on the issue. Since the defence 'experts' could not muster any creditability on that level, their testimony will like be relegated to the level of mere personal opinion and not support the defense adequately.)

Lastly I would point out something about judgement summary…there is only two reasons to do that in this case….1) The defense was counting on the judge to just agree with them and 2) Judgement Summary would spare them the embarrassment and exposure of a full trial.

The defense just simply didn't really do its homework. Reminds me of a pompous jock in my high school who just figure he would get by with the minimum and then cried fowl when he was restricted from playing and remanded to repeat a grade. Failing a grade was a shock to him…but it will be nothing compared to the shock coming to NOM LDS et al. when this whole thing blows up in their faces!!!

(Incidently the whole team felt better after he left, we were able to just feel better and had more group cohesion. I don't really ken to religion but I bet there are a lot of really good churches out there that will breath a collective sigh of relief once the religious right gets its ass handed to them on clay platter!)
71. slsmith66 | February 2, 2010 at 2:57 am

I agree with Fiona, any violence on our part is being used against us now. They forget the Matthew Shepperds, but they sure do throw in our face "white powder in an evelope" and "spray paint on a church". We need the majority to stand behind us. We need to win because it is a civil right, not a civil unrest!
72. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:05 am

This is what the next prop/bill on table will be by prop ha8te, the religious reich(right), The Far right repubs, and the in-humane Bigots:

The LGBT Registration Act: A registration act forcing all LGBT people to register with the United States government.

All LGBT persons will surrender their names to the authorities.

They have to undergo some basic testing and/or training and satisfy certain (as yet unspecified) standards before they gain legal authorisation to continue to be LGBT persons.

Unregistered LGBT individuals will be sent to a prison in the deviant Negative Zone indefinitely until they agree to register.

THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT…..SHORT OF KILLING US!!!…..Let's not let them do this.
73. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:10 am

So true…. but if they do get what they want…and that is the complete destruction and criminalization of LGBT…..at that point its no holds bards….. They don't think so, but they have no idea…..History always repeats its self if we don't learn from it…..They haven't learned from him….They are in complete denial.
74. Santa Barbara Mom | February 2, 2010 at 3:14 am

Fiona and slsmith are absolutely, without a doubt correct. And once again I reiterate the words of Rick: All research done by the Courage Campaign has shown that anger and negative actions have proven COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to our cause. Get a grip on those tendencies so they don't have a negative impact on the rest of us, please.
75. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 3:16 am

Dear Ronnie:

Given that Prop 8 has its historical precedent in the Nuremberg Laws … and that a great many people in the Religious ~~Reich~~ Right would love nothing more than for "A Handmaid's Tale" to become real … I understand your fear.

No, we will not allow that to come to pass. The forces of hate are showing their real (and ugly) faces to the world, what with the sponsors of the National Prayer Breakfast being exposed for their involvement in Uganda's anti-gay bill — just for a start. People are standing up and taking notice, and more people are standing up and saying "NO MORE HATE," loud and clear, from all walks of life.

Remember the beautiful song, my friend …

We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
Deep in my heart
I do believe
That we shall overcome some day

I saw a repeat of Peter, Paul & Mary's Wolf Trap concert from about 10 years ago, and there were little boys and girls singing that song right along with PP&M. They had obviously learned it from their parents. Those little boys and girls grew up to elect our first black President, and are standing up against hatred of all kinds. Those little children gave me hope when very little else did.

Hold hands with me and sing, okay?

Love,
Fiona
76. Mr.HCI | February 2, 2010 at 3:17 am

The lack of political power is a no brainer. The political power of the LGBT community is very limited.

Any group that has laws passed directly discriminating against it in 35 out of 50 states is NOT politically powerful.

Any group that is discriminated against by federal law (DOMA and DADT) is NOT politically powerful.

As to immutability, the plaintiffs lose on that ONLY if ALL *legitimate* scientific findings are ignored in favor of the opinions of religious-based organizations, run by people who have been thrown out of the mental health community for ethics violations.

Furthermore, if being LGB was not immutable, then LGBs would simply choose to be straight, rather than take the BS from society that we get simply for being LGB.
77. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 3:19 am

Speaking of the National Prayer Breakfast … the Pacific School of Religion, in Berkeley, is participating in the American Prayer Hour. This is an event designed to focus attention on the "The Family" and its involvement in Uganda, as well as its sponsorship of this National Prayer Breakfast. Particulars at this link: http://www.americanprayerhour.org/get-the-facts/

Thursday night, 7 PM Pacific time … if you can, please take a moment to pray (as you understand the term) for justice.

Love,
Fiona
78. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 3:21 am

This would be a deplorable dispicable act indeed!!!

….But if they DID do it…..

I hope we would all be required to wear pink triangles…

That way I would know if a cute guy was worth hitting on or not!

Sorry, have to interject some levity in response to what is somewhat of a hysterious comment.

I still think it would be deplorable regardless of its probability.
79. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 3:22 am

Mostly, when reading articles like this, I get very, very angry that LGTB citizens must spend our lives fighting for very, very basic governmental protections that are supposed to be provided to ALL tax paying, law-abiding citizens.

Mostly anger. But not all anger.

Huge amounts of sadness also creep in.

Sadness that so many heterosexuals seek to abuse and degrade and dehumanize THEIR VERY OWN OFFSPRING in this manner while presenting that abuse and degradation as morality. It's not morality. It's abuse.

Damn. Now I'm back at that whole anger thing again.

See the cycle here???? Anger, sadness, anger, sadness, anger, sadness.

But I would ask any heterosexual who possesses the answer to please inform me as to why it is OK for you to abuse, degrade and dehumanize your LGTB children.

What in your soul allows for that?

If you can identify what in your soul allows you to do this to your LGTB offspring, you will clearly see that it is not God.

It is the opposite of God.
80. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:24 am

No I agree violence is completely unacceptable….I'm just trying to point to them to stop ignoring what history has shown us…..When you underestimate your opponent thats when the unexpected happens…..We never underestimate them…we see through their lies and know what they really want.
81. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 3:29 am

Dear Bill:

I wish I had an answer for you. It is beyond my ability to understand. My heart has been broken so many times as I heard peoples' coming-out stories and wished that lots of straight folks could understand how privileged they really are, simply by an accident of biology. I can't see why it is anything but blatantly obvious.

I can only imagine what self-loathing, miserable souls they must be, to reject their courageous children for coming out.

I don't want to hijack at all, but I will tell a story on myself. In 2000, I was supposed to marry a very nice man. He broke our engagement, with a very flimsy excuse. Breaking an engagement is certainly permissible, but his reason never made sense. Earlier this year, I found out the real reason completely by accident; he is now a transwoman. I thought it was the saddest thing in the world that she didn't feel safe to tell me. I am never sure how to manage the pronoun situation when I say that I loved him, and it hurt me that she didn't feel safe to be "out" with a loved one.

So, to summarize, I chose not to have kids for reasons of my own — and I do believe that having kids is a choice, not a default. Someone who chooses to have a child signs on to love them and support them … and that includes if that child is LGBTQI. Young people need to feel as though they can be safe at home, not live in fear of their family and the people who profess to love them.

Love,
Fiona (who fully understands that anger/sadness cycle)
82. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:33 am

The Name God is one "o" short of good and good is the opposite of hate. Nobody will argue that hate is a bad word. The exact phrase is "Hate is a strong word". Strong meaning bad-harmful.

How can you say you love God (minus an "o") but have a heart full of hate?
83. Lo | February 2, 2010 at 3:38 am

I've been wandering the same exact thing!!!
I've been thinking that if Congress doesn't over turn it, then it might help the cause in the rest of the country. Wouldn't it?
84. Lo | February 2, 2010 at 3:47 am

LOL!
85. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:47 am

True that…..fiona64.

Joins hand and hearts and voices….voices, hearts, and hands….. For Equalities, the friendships last long as the mountains stand.

So let's join in for another chorus, visitors, staff and guests. What we've shared won't be forgotten, Old friends are the best.

Third verse sam as the first…hehehe
86. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 3:58 am

I always love your posts, fiona. Above you state, "wished that lots of straight folks could understand how privileged they really are, simply by an accident of biology."

I do not consider myself in any way, shape or form to be 'underprivileged' for being gay, in fact, I feel just the opposite. I consider myself fortunate to be able to see the world through the eyes of a person who is not truly considered a viable member of society. For I know that society is incorrect on this issue. I also understand that a lot of LGTB people are hurting from a lifetime of abuse and do not have the strength or the support to move forward in their lives.

I consider myself very lucky to be the kind of human being that can just keep getting up over and over after the boots of so many heterosexuals have trampled on me for 40 years. Still, I stand up and fight. For myself and for those LGTB people who for whatever the reason, can not any longer. I take no 'personal credit' for my ability to withstand some really vile abuse and keep going after all these years. That was a gift given to me by whoever doles those characteristics out. But I am eternally grateful for that gift. It has saved my life on an occasion or two.

But my anger stems from being attacked as an immoral human being for doing absolutely nothing immoral or wrong. Yet the majority of heterosexuals continue to ATTACK lgtb human beings at any and every given chance. While screaming about morality. Do you understand how that could drive an LGTB person CRAZY???

I mean, a human being can not be participating in crimes against humanity while assuming a position of moral superiority. It simply does not fly.

The very fact that heterosexuals are voting on the rights of lgtb humans that HETEROSEXUALS ALONE create is enough to make me vomit. But the fact that they are not voting for our freedom, but rather the continued oppression of THEIR VERY OWN OFFSPRING, well, THAT makes me want to go postal.

The 'majority' is perfectly willing to ignore the laws of this country in order to perpetrate crimes against their LGTB children, and they are totally getting away with it because the vast majority believe that LGTB lives are worthless.

And I simply have no idea how any heterosexual could reconcile themselves with God or morality while participating in the abuse of human beings. Even if someone ISN'T directly involved in this abuse, their silence DOES equal consent.

Thanks for your post. I always love reading you!!!!
87. Santa Barbara Mom | February 2, 2010 at 3:58 am

Bill, I too wish I had an answer for you. I have shared your stories with my husband, and neither of us can come close to understanding how parents could reject their own child. My heart aches for those children. I would guess that those parents don't have an answer……….maybe they are so angry that they feel "out of sight, out of mind" and it will all go away. Who knows. But what I do know is that those kind of parents don't gain favor in the eyes of God, and they will have to answer to him at some point.
88. Steve | February 2, 2010 at 4:01 am

…sadly, I'll stick with my same old, same old thinking…

Eventually, this case (or a SS marriage case from another state) will make it to the Activist SCOTUS.

The ActivistAndEvilJudgesFive, will some how, some way (while flipping us off) ban SS marriage in America.

Since they seem VERY emboldened now to do whatever they want, ethical/"legal" or not, they will do what they want and that will be that…

I hope, in my lifetime, that I'm proven wrong.
89. Lo | February 2, 2010 at 4:02 am

I agree with Felyx. There's a lot of stuff going on, esp by the time it makes it all the way up to SCOTUS, such as the current DOMA federal lawsuit that the state of Mass has against the federal government.
90. rpx | February 2, 2010 at 4:05 am

@ Santa Barbara Mom, you and I are exactly what this movement needs mothers and grandmothers to stand up for our children and grandchildren. I never visited much less posted on any GLBT website before Prop8. It was the thought that maybe, just maybe my kids can legally marry and get the full state and federal recognition of their love and their relationships that has prompted me to participate here for the very first time.
91. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 4:06 am

Dear Bill:

I did not mean to imply that being LGBT meant that you were underprivileged. I meant "privilege" in the sense that life is made much easier just because of some matter over which you have no real control, as WASP men are more privileged in society than any other group.

Hope that helps.

Love,
Fiona
92. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 4:07 am

Thanks, SBM. As I posted in another thread, I was shown the door when I was 17. I am now 40. I have never heard another peep from Mom, Dad or siblings.

And so, I would consider my family to be HIGHLY immoral. In the truest form of the word.

So it is infuriating when immoral people condemn the lives of the innocent.

And my parents are the 'floor model' of morality for many heterosexuals.

Again, it's the anger, sadness cycle….
93. rpx | February 2, 2010 at 4:07 am

LOL, double LOL
94. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 4:09 am

fiona,

I did not take it that way at ALL. I am sorry if it read that way.

I would call YOU the fierce advocate that Obama promised to be!!!!
95. slsmith66 | February 2, 2010 at 4:10 am

I feel for your story Fiona! For the most part of my life I can say I really never had any probelms with being gay. I came out at 13 and I'm almost 44 years old now. I've always been out to my co-workers who supported me and of course my friends. Since prop 8 I feel more discriminated against then I've ever felt.. I married in 2008 to my long-term partner, now I have to worry someday it will be taken away from me. I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but if that happens I will move to Canada (starting to save my pennies now for it LOL). I refuse to have my loving relationship be anything but a marriage!
96. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 4:17 am

Ok I'm going to post the link because it's a pretty long article from the NYT: But good news I think, however I will post on here a few good points.

Top Defense Officials Seek to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03m…

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said it was his personal and professional belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy “in a fairer manner” — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law

On one thing, they agreed: many gay men and lesbians are serving honorably and effectively in the military today, despite a policy that has driven thousands of others out of the services. But Mr. Levin said the military should act in this matter as it has in others, as a force against discrimination. And Mr. McCain said the military culture was so different from civilian life that the rules for its members, too, must differ. [ASSWHOLE....WE PAY FOR THE ARM FORCES BUT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DIFFERENT RULES TO ABBIDE BY!!!!! more separate but equal, but on an entirely different side]

Republicans have already signaled that they are concerned about timing and not eager to take up the issue. “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC. [Then I ask well when the fuck is the right time? When you have nobody left to fight, because you either discharged them or they were killed in the line of fire]

This will be interesting!
97. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

Ouch!

That hurts.

But I must agree in that I have always believed that if this goes to THIS particular Supreme Court, we do not stand a fair chance. Their opinions are clearly split down party lines.

It is tiring, isn't it? Having your life and your family's life used as political ammunition. Listening to 'men of god' continue their fine tradition of abuse and degradation of LGTB people, and encouraging hatred in people's hearts. Listening to folks debate your worthiness to have access to the same laws and protections that THEY have simply by virtue of birth.

It is very. very discouraging at times.
98. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

Ronnie, check out my latest post on the Lodestar article. I had meant to get it here and didn't realize I had the wrong thread until it went up.

There's newer information. It's not a complete dismantling, but it's an encouraging one. The soldier who worked for me was booted out by an O-5 lieutenant colonel (that's not very high up on the food chain); now that decision will be left to general officers only (way high on the food chain) because so many soldiers in desperately needed specialties (hello, Arabic and Farsi speakers) were discharged under DADT. Third-party informants will no longer have validity, either, so the MCPO McVeigh thing cannot be repeated.
99. Andrew | February 2, 2010 at 4:26 am

Well, technically the government fell apart so dramatically that they pretty much threw it out after only a couple of years and started over in 1787, when the old Articles of Confederation were replaced by our Constitution (ratified in 1788).
100. JiminMN | February 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

I still think that one of the greatest hopes we have in repealing DOMA lies in the fact that its application violates CONSTITUTIONAL treaty law despite there actually being no real conflict.

Currently the United States has bilaterial income tax treaties in existence with every Country that recognizes marriage equality for same sex couples. Each of these treaties has a "nondiscrimination" article. The entire purpose of this article (and I'm quoting the U.S. Department of Treasurys own definition) is to "assure nations of a Contracting State . . . will not be subject, directly ,or indirectly, to discriminatory taxation in the other Contracting State."

Also when you begin to consider that DOMA itself states that its purpose is in "determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States" and that it limits itself solely to the applicaiton of congressional enactmens and their specific interpretation it becomes clear that DOMA itself is not an obstacle in FEDERAL recognition of Same sex marriages from countries to which we have tax treaties.

There are stronger, more applied reasons to why Federal recognition of same sex marriages (at least performed from our allies) should already be in place, but this, to me, is certainly something that SHOULD in the very least be discussed, yet… I haven't heard anyone really talk about it. Let's get on the ball folks and begin hitting at this from ALL angles until the government begins to recognize it *MUST* treat everyone equally.
101. Michelle Evans | February 2, 2010 at 4:42 am

Close to home, we must keep fighting for our equality, regardless of what happens in this trial. With that in mind, I hope that those of us on this group here in California will do whatever we can to move things forward. If we can ever pass a marriage equality bill through a ballot vote. it would be a major game changer and would eliminate the argument of the religious right about upholding "democracy."

The signature gathering for the 2010 ballot measure is in full swing and I would hope we could all get behind the effort. We must push in the courts AND at the ballot box, for as long as it takes, until we get everything we deserve. Please visit the Restore Equality 2010 site and get involved–and pass it on!!
http://www.restoreequality2010.com/
102. Callie | February 2, 2010 at 4:44 am

Don't know if anyone's posted this around here yet, but thought I'd share:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60842

New Federal 'Hate Crimes' Law Challenged on Constitutional Grounds

My apologies that this is coming from a fundie site so you get their sickening spin on it all.

"The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.."

Since when did freedom of religion mean "the right to beat the gay out of fags"?

I don't know about you all, but I'm seriously thinking about taking some self-defense classes. These people are getting nuttier by the day. Lisa Miller kidnaps her child to keep her away from her lesbian ex. Baptists try to take Haitian kids across the border. Now this…

This is not Uganda…YET! But I don't think most of the extremists out there would mind it if it was.
103. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 4:51 am

See I told you guys they will not stop at marriage…..Not only are we going to have to fight for our rights but we WILL have to fight for our lives…..forget self defense(which I already can do, I took boxing lessons in high school)….I'm getting a license to carrie a gun…Is Sara Palin can so can I!
104. Mr.HCI | February 2, 2010 at 4:53 am

test comment … one I posted is not appearing and it won't allow me to repost it
105. waxr | February 2, 2010 at 5:02 am

"no way in Hell are the republican appointed judges EVER going to vote for gay rights."

Don't forget that Judge Vaughn Walker is a Republican appointed judge.
106. rpx | February 2, 2010 at 5:07 am

Ronnie- Step away from the keyboard. Put down the double expressos, take a deep breath. OhhhhhKay. The vote was close in Prop8 in CA, those voters are not going to make you register as a homosexual.
107. waxr | February 2, 2010 at 5:09 am

I am disappointed that the recreation did not include the campaign videos which were playing doing the trial. I hape the YouTube site makes them available in the MarriageTrial's Channel
108. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 5:10 am

OMG Thank you!!! Hearing some of the dour gloom has left me wondering where the spirit has gone. There are more people in this world than monied bigots or uneducated sheep.

SCOTUS does not vote strictly on party lines. Moreover, social civil rights issues garner different attention than political ones.

I thik as a people we have been so brainwashed to feel disenfranchised that we accept emotional pessimism without rational scrutiny. Justice really does carry the day. Intelligence really does win out over ignorance in the long term. Once a people with just cause finds its voice it is only a matter of time.

Careful scrutiny of this one case shows it to have almost all of the essential factors needed to succeed, good advocates that did their homework (always important), a social cause that is asking for equality (traditionally a winner), constitutional merit (state constitutions mirror the federal constitution…if it makes its case at the state level, the chances are that it will make its case on the federal…this is a pattern with a majority of state level SC cases that go to the SCOTUS!), and most importantly though least definably, a gut instinct that this is the right thing to do regardless of personal comfort level.

SSM already exists in other countries. The myths have been shattered. SSM exists in this country. The lies are being exposed and refuted. The laws are being challenged on every level. It will happen…and soon!
109. waxr | February 2, 2010 at 5:12 am

I hope you know that the President cannot fire a Supreme Court justice. They hold their seats for life.
110. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 5:27 am

yeah i saw that…thank you…did you see what Callie posted….now I'm done…I'm not going to do anything to instigate violence against me other then being gay in public but I am getting a gun.. I 100% believed that they were not going to stop at marriage now I am 2012% sure that the are NOT going to stop at marriage.
111. Andrew | February 2, 2010 at 5:32 am

Hm… Could we claim political assylum?
112. slsmith66 | February 2, 2010 at 5:36 am

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_82843/Child_Kille…

The other side carries guns also unfortunatly…. But according to the above (prior post) article this would just be freedom of speech and expression.
113. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 5:38 am

Just when I think that the fundagelicals cannot possibly be more stupid …
114. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 5:39 am

It is important to specify that civil disobedience is NOT the same thing as violence. Civil disobedience played a large role in the 1960's civil rights movement.

And I would also point out that it is rather difficult for heterosexuals to point to the LGTB community as being 'violent' when:

A. We are, as far as I can tell, the most peaceful, gentle people I have ever met.

and

B. It is heterosexuals that perpetrate violence on US. It has never been otherwise.
115. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 5:41 am

Ronnie, I say this as someone who is a rather good marksman.

*If* you get a weapon, please make sure you learn how to use it. You should not ever plan to draw that weapon (other than in training/practice) unless you are in such danger that the only reason to draw it is to kill someone.

Love,
Fiona (who started keeping a pistol at her bedside when some Prop 8 supporters cyber-stalked her and posted her personal information on-line … and yes, law enforcement got involved)
116. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 5:42 am

^^^^^ This.

Peaceful civil disobedience is what has carried the day on various civil rights issues. That means boycotts, marches, vigils … not violence.
117. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 5:44 am

Nope! Unh! Unh!….Nope!…Not gonna happen….Thank you Callie for posting that…I'm Done!….Thats it!….No more. Mr. Nice Bitch!

They want gay bashing to be legal!….OHHHH!!!! I so PISSED OFF right now!!!!!……UGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

"Out of the bars and into the streets! Anita Bryant is coming for YOU!!!!!!"

Ooooooo!!!! I just want strangle something…..They said it, they said….I said that they would say and indeed they did!……Leaping Lizards on a crucifix ……UGGGGGGGG!!!!!
118. slsmith66 | February 2, 2010 at 5:51 am

don't get me wrong.. I'm with fiona as I have several weapons also, but then again I was raised with weapons and have owned one since I was 12. Like she said, learn to use it and if your interested in home defence I recommend a shotgun over a handgun.
119. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 5:51 am

I know how to use a gun…I learned when I was a 16 and a boy scout….bullseye every time.
120. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 5:52 am

I think that we are all missing his true point:

Where will they stop? What are their limits? Do they HAVE limits?

Seriously.

If they can strip their fellow Californians of what the Supreme Court calls 'a fundamental human right,' then where does it TRULY end.

It has always amazed me that Prop 8 does not scare the bejesus out of ALL American Citizens. For never in the history of this nation has an innocent group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens been stripped of existing rights by their fellow countrymen. And I often wonder if we as Americans are too stupid to see the precedent that we have set with Prop 8. Not only toward LGTB citizens, but to ALL citizens.

By 2052, whites will be a minority in this country. Also, the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years. Some scholars see an emerging Muslim renaissance as Islam takes root in many traditionally Christian communities. (from CNN.com)

So what will YOU do when the Christian & Islamic crazies come for YOU and there is no one left to stick up for YOUR rights? What will ANY of us do???

As far as I know, God has never intervened on behalf on ANYONE, and so, we will all be left to protect ourselves from the violence and immorality of Christianity and Islam.

Good luck with that, us.
121. Alan E. | February 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
122. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 5:57 am

Bill, you cited the point that I always make — the real slippery slope is that anyone's rights are up for grabs.

Statistically, though, the largest growing religion is Wicca (on track to be the third-largest world religion by 2012); the People of the Book are losing proponents at a fairly rapid rate. This, BTW, scares the crap out of many Christians.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr1.htm
123. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 5:58 am

Thanks, Alan. Rustin's story is amazing.
124. Ozymandias ('ca | February 2, 2010 at 5:59 am

"In the end, we must take each step day by day. Justice has been known to move slowly on occasion." QFT Brian.

For me, the most grueling part of this process is now the wait – during the trial, it was easy for me to see and applaud the well-presented evidence of our blatant discrimination, powerlessness and how animus is constantly aimed at us (and our supporters) – I was supercharged by what I was seeing.

Now, comes the waiting… and second-guessing… and doubting… and that's hard. It's hard to keep my own morale up when there's nothing else to do concerning this case but WAIT.

I have also noticed that, since I've been reading the transcripts, my anger toward those who keep mindlessly posting/saying the same old rhetoric just keeps growing. I want to take these people and shake 'em, while screaming 'HERE'S THE EVIDENCE! RIGHT HERE! LOOK AT IT!' because these people just REFUSE to look, see, or understand. It's harder to bite my tongue and be civil in the face of such incivility!

So that's the depressive/pessimistic part speaking (obviously). Yet, I also cling to hope – hope that was rekindled big-time with the Prop 8 trial. Yes, it was sobering to see just how much animus was aimed at us in California; the documented and highly-planned campaign to smear us back into the closet was hard to bear at times. But I keep reminding myself of how important it is that this information is HERE for everyone to see! I have extreme confidence in Olsen/Boise and their abilities, and also their knowledge of how the process works, and the best methods of getting Prop 8 overturned. In fact, it's not unreasonable to me that their strategy is much more over-arching… I mean, these guys play to win, and their strategy has reflected that – whether with Judge Vaughn, or with the 9th Circuit Court, or SCOTUS… and I hold on to that.

*gets off my soapbox*

Love,

Ozy
125. Alan E. | February 2, 2010 at 6:00 am

Actually Bill, the fastest rising group is non-affiliated and non-religious.
126. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 6:03 am

I mean I don't know specifics about guns like names and stuff like that….But I know who to use a rifle, but I'm better at using a handgun…more control….I wonder if the forget about these things when they decide to attack somebody…"um maybe I shouldn't do this because he might have a gun"….FOOLS!!!!!

Let them win this case to legalize gay bashing!!!! and see what happens…HEY BIGOTS WE ARE NOT ALL SCARED CLOSETED FAIRY"S ANYMORE!!!!!

We make take the high road now because we are better then you, (both us LGBT's and our straight allies), but push us far enough it you will be done!
127. rpx | February 2, 2010 at 6:13 am

Okay this really creeps me out. Evangelical churches are now organizing martial arts fights in the church basements. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/02fight.html…

Whooah- Maybe Ronnie is right after all???????
128. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 6:18 am

I told you!
129. Callie | February 2, 2010 at 6:22 am

*gulp* That Xtreme Ministries is in my flippin' backyard, man! Just what I need, some Bible-thumpin' redneck pumped up on adrenaline thinking he's gonna show me what a real woman should act like.
130. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 6:24 am

@ Allan E.

Not according to recent studies. I pulled that blurb about Islam/Christianity directly from a report on CNN from last month.

I think holding out hope that the 'religious' and their children who seek to destroy us will abandon their dogma is NOT the way to go here.

But that's your call for yourself.

For me, who learned first hand on November 4th of 2008 exactly what it feels like to have my rights so vulgarly and hatefully violated by my fellow citizens, I prefer to see them as they are.
131. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 6:26 am

It's the frickin' creepy Dobson family behind this (again). I have no doubt that the young men to whom they minister would find gay-bashing to be "righteous."

See Combat Jesus http://grilledjesus.com/index.php/tag/action-figu… …
132. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 6:32 am

Hey Fiona64 did you read my joke on the you can't turn the lights off thread….It just came to me in like a second…LOL
133. Ozymandias ('ca | February 2, 2010 at 6:35 am

Callie, this news (and the resulting spin) is disgusting, but not surprising. There's an effort to exempt Oklahoma from the Matthew Shepherd Act already underway – and the rhetoric is the same tripe of 'well a crime is a crime is a crime' while gleefully ignoring the fact that one reason why hate crime laws are even necessary is the complicity and lack of enforcement by local police!

I do agree with the self-defense courses – I plan on taking them myself this year – because once again, the rhetoric is ignoring the simple reasons why hate crime laws are needed. The 'evidence' they cite from the FBI seems fishy… I wanna say I've read about that before but I don't remember where.

Love,

Ozy
134. Callie | February 2, 2010 at 6:39 am

And have you all noticed their unhealthy obsession with Chuck Norris? It's just bizarre.
135. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 6:42 am

They're incorrect. The FBI's statistics demonstrate that, while hate crimes in *general* are decreasing, the largest *increasing* victim pool, kf you will, is LGBT people. Furthermore, there is an uptick in violence against LGBT people whenever another piece of anti-LGBT legislation is passed, because then people feel that they are "righteous" in their bigotry.

The latest year for which complete stats are available is 2008, during which year 1706 crimes were motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html
136. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 6:45 am

I grew up in the 'evangelical' church.

I know their intentions.

I know their hearts.

I know, firsthand, that evil actually believes itself to be good.

And I know that they will stop at nothing until they force the 'Armageddon' that so many of them pray for with breath that is bated.

I know that when I hear an elected government official deny that global warming is an area that humans should concern themselves with because 'only God decides when the world ends,' I tremble in my shoes.

And so should you.
137. Dieter M. | February 2, 2010 at 6:54 am

Hey can someone help me with a technical question?..about 3 days ago, suddenly I cannot get links or video to work in here.
all I get is a big blank white box, and in the upper left hand corner, a smaller box that has a tiny red triangle, a green circle and a blue square. what happened?..what program do I need to fix. this never happened before and it happens on every site I go to and try to watch a video. All my video players are current and updated, I have deleted files, and cookies. I have deleted history. rebooted my puter. Tried everything….arggggggg
138. Dieter M. | February 2, 2010 at 6:57 am

you are talking about the same supreme court that just handed the country over to CHEVRON….and the rich churches. hardly seems to be an effort to show any "legal" standings or impartiality.
139. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 6:59 am

Friends in Northern CA:

Ten years ago this month, in the wake of his church's efforts to pass Prop 22, gay Mormon Stuart Matis committed suicide on the steps of the local stake (church geographical zone) office.

There is a 10th anniversary vigil being planned. Please visit this link for particulars. http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=168

It is my fondest hope that haters and trolls will leave people to their peaceful remembrance of this young man who killed himself rather than continue dealing with the bigotry embraced by the church he had grown up in and loved.

Love,
Fiona
140. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 7:00 am

What kind of comp to do you have?
141. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 7:01 am

I saw it, Ronnie. It was cute.
142. Bill | February 2, 2010 at 7:04 am

Fiona:

Quick question for you…

What is your personal stake here? I only ask because you, like I and many others, have been here every single day.

And since you are not LGTB, a far as I can tell from your posts, I was just wondering if you could/would share a few words about what meaning this has to you personally.

Feel free to tell me to pee in my hat, I am not asking you this to judge you in any way, but rather to understand how you have become such an ally for us.
143. Dieter M. | February 2, 2010 at 7:08 am

I have an HP with XP
144. waxr | February 2, 2010 at 7:13 am

The Bible is used to justify hate.
Love does not need justification.
145. Matt N | February 2, 2010 at 7:20 am

Justice Kennedy has overturned two anti-gay laws in the past 15 years, so it's definitely possible.

Plus, did you know Justice Kennedy was a guest at Theodore Olsen's marriage a few years ago?
146. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 7:22 am

Oh…well I can't help you…I'm not a complete techy but if you had an Apple I would be able to help a little…

Yes people I am a jobsniac….I am a member of the Apple cult!
147. Dieter M. | February 2, 2010 at 7:23 am

Hey can someone help me with a technical question?..about 3 days ago, suddenly I cannot get links or video to work in here.
all I get is a big blank white box, and in the upper left hand corner, a smaller box that has a tiny red square, a green circle and a blue triangle. what happened?..what program do I need to fix. this never happened before and it happens on every site I go to and try to watch a video. All my video players are current and updated, I have deleted files, and cookies. I have deleted history. rebooted my puter. Tried everything….arggggggg
148. ThatsMyCat | February 2, 2010 at 7:24 am

That was better than the first.
149. Straight Ally #3008 | February 2, 2010 at 7:27 am

Some things to things about:

2000: Prop 22 passes with 61% approval
2008: Prop 8 passes with 52% approval

Support for same-sex marriage in CA, based on average polling data:

1994/1996: ~32%
2003/2004: ~42%
2008/2009: 50%

The Religious Right is powerful, but even they can't stop this tide. They will lose on this issue – the spate of laws and constitutional amendments are desperate attempts to forestall the inevitable.
150. waxr | February 2, 2010 at 7:30 am

Gays in the military was not an issue until World War II when the British insisted that the US ban gays from the military on the grounds that they were security risks.
151. Straight Ally #3008 | February 2, 2010 at 7:33 am

Twenty-five, thirty years ago, the barometer of human rights in the United States were black people. That is no longer true. The barometer for judging the character of people in regard to human rights is now those who consider themselves gay, homosexual, lesbian.

We are all one. And if we don't know it, we will learn it the hard way.

- Bayard Rustin, 1987
152. Straight Ally #3008 | February 2, 2010 at 7:38 am

The documentary Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin is available online. I must admit that I had no idea who Rustin was until recently. In my opinion, this is required viewing for anyone following the Prop 8 Trial.
153. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 7:40 am

'Cause you cant stop
The motion of the ocean
Or the sun in the sky
You can wonder if you wanna
But i never ask why

And if you try to hold me down
I'm gonna spit in your eye and say
That you cant stop the beat!

inevitable is an understatement
154. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 7:42 am

Gad, this gets a little complicated. I also know that you are not trying to judge me at all. So, while I try to explain it, all I ask is your patience.

I did tell a little bit of my story in another thread a couple of days ago, but I don't mind doing so again.

I have a bisexual nephew whom I love dearly. One of my cousins is a lesbian (long story — we knew each other for about 10 years before discovering that we were related, LOL). My best friend for many years was a gay man (we have drifted apart, as sometimes happens with friendships). I have LGBT friends from many walks of life; I did a lot of theatre, and that's how I met most of them. I was engaged to a man who is now a transwoman. The matron of honor in my wedding is bisexual. The father of my niece and nephew by marriage is gay. One of my favorite cousins was gay, and he suicided because of the homophobia he faced every day.

In other words, these are my friends and loved ones.

I also walked away from the church in which I had loved when it became affiliated with Dobson's "Focus on the Family" — and started preaching anti-gay rhetoric. I wrote about some of that experience in an essay that has been published by several MCC Congregations since I first wrote it at the request of our local MCC minister. http://mccsj.org/?p=731

I have survived bullying in school and the workplace. I have survived domestic violence and sexual assault. I have been victimized for being "other." While I do not and would not dare to compare what that was like for me with what LGBT people face in their daily lives, what those experience *did* do was teach me an awful lot about where compassion lives. It sure didn't live in the church that told me to go home and be a better woman because then my 6'5" fiance "wouldn't need to" beat the crap out of 5'1", then 100-pound me.

I did learn that real Christian compassion lived in a little tiny MCC congregation, where I was welcome despite being straight, having been a practicing pagan for years … and where the first person who spoke to me the day I showed up was a transman who said "Welcome home, sister. I am so glad you are here today." I burst into tears because *no one* had ever done that in a church I attended. Ever.

So, what's my personal stake in this? Aside from knowing that my rights could potentially be at stake if women become next on the "groups we love to hate" hit parade? It's that these are my friends and loved ones who are being told that they aren't good enough. That they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.

That is not okay. It is NEVER okay to hate someone for their mere existence. Hate me because I gave you a reason if you will, but because I was born? That's just not a good enough cause.

I have mentioned before that my parents are Mormon; they converted when I was an adult. One of the things I learned about how to treat people was by an example set by my dad (and trust me, we did not always have a great relationship). When I was 8 years old, in 1972, my dad gave away the bride at a wedding her own parents refused to attend. The groom was a young, African-American man who was one of my dad's students at Job Corps, and the bride was Caucasian. My daddy stood up there with them because it was the right thing to do. He was a POW in Viet Nam and has a lot of problems as a result … but when it's time to do the right thing, he is always there.

How could I NOT stand up for my LGBT friends' right to marry the person they love?

This has been harder for me to write than I thought it would be; tears are welling up, and have just now spilled over while I wrote about my daddy.

Thank you for asking me to tell you. I hope what I wrote was not incoherent.

Love,
Fiona
155. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 7:48 am

Do you have images blocked on your computer preferences? That's the case at work (we're on PCs with XP here) so it doesn't show up, but at home on my Mac it's just fine.
156. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 7:54 am

PS — A person once accused me of only caring about LGBT rights as a "Lady Bountiful issue" — in other words, to make a big deal about how liberal I am, and for no other reason (just as Lady Bountiful in "The Beaux' Stratagem" gave to the needy so that she could talk about how wealthy she was).

That's not it at all. I care about human rights and dignity. There is a reason that Gaston Leroux's "Phantom of the Opera" is my favorite novel; its overarching theme is that all people are deserving of kindness and compassion. My mother likes to say that we should be kind to everyone we meet, because everyone is fighting some kind of battle.

I know it probably seems like, to at least some people, that a hetero married woman like me shouldn't concern herself with this matter. But the truth is, I care too much about humanity *not* to concern myself.

Love,
Fiona
157. Alan E. | February 2, 2010 at 9:00 am

One of the comments talks about Matthew Shepard being a same-s.ex [sic] addict.
158. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 9:04 am

I suspect that the punctuation mark was in order to get around filters on the site … I've done similar things on the SacBee.

Of course, the spin on the hate-filled people on that site put on Matthew Shepard's murder disgusted me: "they didn't even know he was a same-sex addict." Um, no. They knew that he was a gay man, and they killed him. Period, end of story. There is no way to spin this that makes those murderers anything else.

These people wouldn't know the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Joseph if he showed up at their front door with notarized documents.

Love,
Fiona
159. Sarah | February 2, 2010 at 9:27 am

Thank you so much for sharing Fiona, I have really enjoyed reading your comments (and watching you tear apart Kay's arguments). It really bothers me when people think allies are in this fight for superficial reasons. You don't have to be part of a minority group to understand that their rights are important.

"But the truth is, I care too much about humanity *not* to concern myself."

I love that statement. We should always feel other's pain, recognize our own privilege and look for ways to improve the world.

I am a bisexual currently dating a man, and even that makes me feel very cut off from the GLBT community at times. I think it is very cool how you, as a hetero woman, don't seem to have any of the hang ups about "fitting in" with the community that I do as a bi woman. You have such an important voice and you're letting it be heard, and I just think you're way cool. Don't let anyone tell you you, this shouldn't concern you, 'cause we're pretty damn glad it does.
160. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 9:35 am

Sarah, you just made me cry.

Thank you so very much for your kindness.

Love,
Fiona
161. slsmith66 | February 2, 2010 at 10:28 am

Are you a mac or pc?
If PC try a different browser and see if it works, ie firefox or internet explorer.
Make sure your vid drivers are current.
Did you have a recent update to your Operating system? If so might try rolling back to an earlier date and see if that works.

If your Mac…Someone else will have to answer.
162. Michelle Evans | February 2, 2010 at 11:07 am

There is a great divide within the LGBT community about whether we should move forward in 2010 or 2012 with another ballot initiative. I had one activist who favors dropping any attempt at 2010 write me a long message with concern to this, and I wanted to share my reply here and ask for other people's opinions for or against what has been said.

text of email:
Thanks for sharing additional details about your decision to not focus on the 2010 campaign. While I can understand what you have said, along with many other organizations in the community with regard to 2010 vs 2012, I also believe that no matter what, the effort will continue towards 2010. If that fails, we will focus on 2012, 2014, whatever it takes to get our fundamental rights returned to us. If those of us in the community that can do something to help this along are unwilling to move forward, then that also shows the Pro-8 camp that we are a divided group and that they can do whatever they want. Giving them two additional years to do even more harm, I personally believe is not a good thing.

Think about the situation just a decade ago when there were no laws prohibiting gay marriage in any states' constitution, whereas today there are a minority of states that do not have those bans in place. Look at the number of setbacks just in the last few months with places like Maine, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and just a few days ago in Hawaii. The right wing machine is well oiled and well funded, and they are not stopping. Neither should we. Do you honestly believe they will sit back and do nothing until we decide to mobilize in 2012?

The longer they have the ability to continue to pursue their goals, the worse it will be and the harder to overcome the momentum in their favor. I believe that we must fight back every day, just as the people involved in civil rights did 50 years ago. If we sit back and allow two more years to pass without attempting to do everything we can to stop their steamroller, it may simply be too late. As Martin Luther King said many times, he equated the word "wait" with the word "never" and he was not going to let that happen.

We must get behind any effort to move our rights forward or else we are playing directly into the hands of the fundamentalists by being divided and weak.
163. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 11:16 am

I concur we need to step it up and become even louder then they are…I also believe that we need let them know that there will be consequences for denying us our rights!

It is time that the gloves come off and we start showing them what really can do.
164. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 11:28 am

I would consider two arguements, one for and one against.

For 2010, keep pounding on the door. This issue is not going to die and eventually we will prevail. 'Ask and ye shall receive!!'

Against, If it passes then the prop 8 trial may become a moot point (I doubt it though.) You can't sue to overturn a law if it no longer exists. The potential for this to go the SCOTUS is enormous. If they rule in favor or constitutional rights then not only CA wins the right, but everybody wins the right, and it will be won on a federal level (think SS benefits etc.)

That being said, I still say keep banging on the door. The trial may fail or it may go to SCOTUS regardless.

Good luck either way!
165. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 11:31 am

'rule in favor or' should read, 'rule in favor for'

Sorry. ;P
166. Johnny | February 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm

And to further highlight the powerlessness in the Ninth Circuit, just look at the fecklessness of the House in Hawaii in bowing to the vocal bigotry of Christian organizations in failing to pass civil unions.
167. Bill | February 3, 2010 at 1:54 am

Fiona,

Thanks for sharing your story.

I knew you were one of us.

(You don't have to be LGTB to be one of us!!! We accept everyone as they are.)
168. Gavel Grab » Wednes&hellip | February 3, 2010 at 7:01 am

[...] Prop 8 Trial Tracker: Is This Case Really Heading For the Supreme Court? Definitely Maybe. Brian Leubitz – 2/1/2010 [...]
169. Tom B. | February 3, 2010 at 10:15 am

Like they told us when I was in the military, the first time we handled a weapon: "Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them."
170. Jenny O | February 3, 2010 at 10:37 am

There was an episode of The West Wing (In Excelsis Deo) where they explored the issue of expanding hate crime legislation to include crimes against LGBT persons. The issue was all based on the murder of a 17-year-old boy by his classmates (supposed to draw parallels to Matthew Shepard). I'm bringing this up because in the episode one character says something like, 'the crime is already illegal and you can't control what a person is thinking when they commit it' (that's a very, very loose paraphrase). And one of the actors on the issue said, "I think that it's a very scary, slippery slope to go down, that you prosecute someone differently for what they're thinking." My guess is that's essentially what this lawsuit will argue.

Personally, I don't agree. You can't control what they think, but hate crimes are a different type of crime all together. As the argument was made in the Perry case, the point of hate crimes is to show a group of people that they are not liked or wanted. I don't pretend to be an expert, and have never been the victim of one, but it is my understanding that hate crimes tend to have more lasting psychological effects because of the intentions behind them. That's a serious problem and people who commit these types of crimes which such hatred in their hearts, I think, should be prosecuted for it. When a group of people are being consistently assaulted for something beyond their control, it is the government's job to protect them. The attacker's first amendment rights end the moment they decided to act on their hate and hurt or kill another person. And that intent should defiantly be considered in prosecution.
171. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 10:52 am

I can't find that but this is apart of that episode I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbQflvd8_c
172. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 11:30 am

And if the truth were known, it had nothing at all with being a security risk. The WWII Brits were just jealous because our gays & lesbians dressed with more style and taste than theirs did.
173. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 11:35 am

Remember, they are grasping at straws. If the first one they grasp does not fit the hole they are trying to plug, they will grasp another, and another. Okay, everybody, go to the CC main website and find the lik to create an Equality Team in your neighborhood, hen get that team up and running, and let's all mobilize!! Time to make sure we shout the truth from the rooftops
174. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 11:43 am

The Red Coats are coming!!!!!!!!…wait…. wrong war….hehehe
175. Glenn I | February 3, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Wouldn't the Denial of Marriage Act be invoked in this case? The Denial of Marriage Act says the federal government can pretend same sex marriages do not exist, no matter where contracted. Would the 9th Circuit necessarily be declaring DOMA unconstitutional if they threw out Prop 8? Like Brian says above, "It's really hard to argue" that such a result could be possible. But I'm inclined to think something of the kind is more likely than the 9th Circuit recognizing outright a right to marriage for same sex couples. Some splitting of the baby, to invoke Solomon.
176. Glenn I | February 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Considering Kennedy's internationalism and his previous previous opinions recognizing gay people as human beings deserving of human consideration, I'm not giving up on him yet.
177. Glenn I | February 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm

The governing body of Mexico City has voted for same sex marriage. I'm wishing them well.
178. Glenn I | February 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Scalia brought up gay marriage as a way to ridicule Kennedy's Romer opinion. Scalia firmly believes a majoritarian legislating of morality is necessary – especially since he feels safely in the majority (see every anti-marriage ballot victory). Scalia knew gay marriage was radioactive at the time Romer was decided and he certainly won't have changed his mind.
179. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Dieter, it sounds as though IE is acting up.
180. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Yes, but unfortunately, there are some at Mexico's federal level who are already challenging it. We have had some posts from a young Mexican man about it, and there is a blog post with a Spanish title that deals with it a little bit. I hope the ones who are fighting trying to overturn it lose, but we need to keep an eye on that one as well.
181. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm

Hate crimes are terrorism, pure and simple. They are intended to terrorize people who belong to the same 'category' (for lack of a better term) as the victim, be it a faith practice, LGBT, ethnicity, whatever.

*That's* why there needs to be an enhancement to certain cases by bringing in the hate crimes statute.

Love,
Fiona
182. A Little Bit of Appellate&hellip | February 8, 2010 at 10:17 am

[...] As I’ve mentioned before, the Supreme Court takes cases by getting a writ of certiorari signed by four of the nine Supreme Court Justices. They have complete discretion as to which cases they take, but I’ll send you back to my post about the Supreme Court for that. [...]
183. car maintenance schedule&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Blogging Internet…

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

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Tracking the right-wing

Quick Hits

Recent Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Organizations

We need your feedback!

Is This Case Really Heading For the Supreme Court? Definitely Maybe.

1660183 Comments2010-02-02+01%3A00%3A26Brian+Leubitz Leave a Comment

Leave a Comment

Help Win Marriage in November 2012

Login

Connect With Us

Get Email Notice of New Posts

Want to know where things stand with the Prop 8 trial?

DOMA Repeal

NOM TOUR TRACKER

Latest tweets

Share This