Mooting Perry?

February 13, 2010

by Brian Leubitz

A while back, one of our trial trackers here at the site asked an important question. My apologies to the original commenter, I wasn’t able to find the link back to the question, but here’s the gist:

“IF the attempt to get the “Restore Marriage 2010″ proposal onto this years ballot succeeds, & IF it gets passed, what effect would that have on Prop 8’s journey through the Federal Courts?

For example, if Judge Walker invalidates Prop 8 & if the 9th Circuit hasn’t yet ruled on the likely appeal, would the passage of the proposal repealing Prop 8 eliminate the possibility that Prop 8 would at some point be declared unconstitutional, &/or LGBTs to be declared a Suspect Class? (Hope this question makes sense.)

If that is a real possibility, it seems like it would be better to wait until after the final ruling on Prop 8, even though that might be risking a loss somewhere along the line. Otherwise, if the “Restore Marriage 2010″ passes, it seems like we only get marriage rights at the CA state level, vs a very real possibility of getting a whole lot more at the Federal level.

This is, generally, question about the legal doctrine of “mootness.” In a general sense, a case is moot if the decision wouldn’t have any legal consequense.  Courts have declined to hear such cases because the parties wouldn’t have the vested interested, and wouldn’t be be the best advocates for the arguments. Despite the fact that frequently litigants would like to have a legal decision stemming from a case that has been mooted, courts generally dismiss such cases.  This could happen with Prop 8, but let’s pick this apart and try to answer all of the various possibilities of what could happen.

1) The “Restore Equality 2010″ folks are able to get the measure on the ballot, and they succeed in overturning Prop 8.

The federal court would likely dismiss the case.  Just being brutally honest here, but the last news I’ve heard from the campaign indicates that they are far behind where they need to be in order to get on the ballot. While a last month miracle could happen, it seems a long shot. That being said, in November 2010, the court will probably have made its decision and the case will be in the hands of the 9th Circuit, probably with a stay pending appeal if Prop 8 is overturned. The electoral defeat of Prop 8 would mean that a legal decision would have no impact on the litigants, in this case Perry and the other plaintiffs.

We need to remember here that the court case is only about Prop 8, and marriage in California, not federal law.  While this case does present good facts, and I’ll go into that angle in a later post, there is no facial challenge of DOMA or any other federal law.  This case could provide important precedent for a challenge to DOMA, but it is not itself such a challenge.

2) Prop 8 is repealed in 2012.

This seems to be the more likely scenario, with the majority of the funders of a prop 8 repeal pushing for a November 2012 campaign. The question here is speed of the case.  It wouldn’t be unheard of either way for the case to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court in the three years since filing, but nor would it be unheard of for the case to be delayed past that date. In this case, the Court would seem to have a vested interest in waiting for a resolution via the ballot box.  They have ways of delaying such things, and if they see that at ballot fight is likely, they are likely to use every delay tactic they have to avoid this case until it’s settled at the ballot box.

My take on this is that despite the tremendous value of a legal win, a win at the ballot box would be far more valuable. You would end up giving some good facts to make some good law, however, once California strikes the domino, we would likely set the nation on a path towards equality.  We will need a legal victory.  As the Court showed in Loving v. Virginia, on the big social issues of the day, the Court likes to have somebody else blaze the trail. In that instance, it was the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

In this case, Perry v Schwarzenegger just might be the case that sets the legal process really moving federally.  Even with that as a possible outcome, I think I’d take the electoral win and a mooted case every day. (And twice on Sundays.)

Filed under: Uncategorized

167 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Thank you Brian….I see them trying to stall things or push certain things though so that It could possibly stop it from becoming a national issue at the federal level….A win is a win and in any case Perry v. Schwarzenegger is going to be a president that will change everything and make it into the history world wide web(because lets face it, books are becoming a moot point)….haha…….<3…Ronnie

  • 2. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Brian, while I, too, would take a voted legal change any day ad a mooted decision in Perryv. Schwarzenegger, I would also hope tht Peryy v. Schwarzenegger becomes the case that overturns this on a national level, and brings us full equality.

  • 3. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:29 am

    haha…I spelt it president instead of precedent….I haven't had my coffee yet today…sorry friends for using the wrong word…those of you who are avid coffee drinkers know what I mean…lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 4. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Good morning everyone, I too, have just had my coffe, though I was up very early this morning doing my contests, to which I will admit I am also addicted! I live in California and gathered signatures for a ballot measure to overturn Prop8. In the small community, where I live, there is not a lot of support for a ballot measure, so I could only get a handfull of signatures on mine. I believe most of the signatures on this kind of effort will come from the larger cities, like LA, SF, SD, etc., since this is where most of our support comes from. It is interesting from my perspective, liberals tend to flock to the larger cities, while conservatives prefer the "homelite" (a term I use to refer to back-water towns) camps.

  • 5. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:45 am

    Good morning….and yes I got the song…I already bought of iTunes weeks ago….the video is awesome…Sade just radiates power and strength but in a soft, calm way….<3…Ronnie

  • 6. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Yeah, I agree – she is remarkable! Love, David

  • 7. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Thank you, Brian, for sharing your thoughts with us on the question that was raised in on the posts. I am sorry, I don't remember who it was that asked the question, but it is an excellent question. Love, David

  • 8. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Don't underestimate the power of just knocking on a door. Many times an individual who won't sign your petition and would have voted against you decided to abstain just because they now know you.

    Calmly quietly just being visible doesn't seem like much but it is more powerful than all the righteous ranting preachers can dish out!

  • 9. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Felyx, I also stood in front several stores (i.e. – Walmart, Albertson's (Grocery Store), K-Mart for hours and everyone who entered the store, I asked if they would like to sign my petition – I got not takers, only some very dirty looks and then there was a self-righteous man, who called me all kinds of names that are not suitable here.

  • 10. dieter  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Arkansas: Dem U.S. House candidate on board of group citing execution of gays, bestiality, incest

    Tim Woolridge has submitted a bill in Arkansas to make being gay punishable by death and the that it be done in a PUBLIC space.
    this is a U.S. democrat doing these things.
    If this does not scare you all into action I don't know what will. To all of you who keep saying that riots and violence are not the answer…..I ask you to read the above again. This US democrat wants to kill gays in public hangings. His reason?…the BIBLE says to!!!

  • 11. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Again, there are those who are not sure or secretly want to agree but do not do so openly. It is almost impossible to measure but there are those who are deciding to not be against you even if it is being done passively.

    The, 'I don't really care anymore and I give up.' factor is an important one! I applaud you and hope you feel inspired that you are changing minds even if it cannot be outwardly detected!

  • 12. David John Lawrence  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I'm wondering what if. . . . .

    What if the proposed ballot repeal wins and then is countered with yet another ballot initiative similar to the Prop 8 that recently passed? Seems to me that this kind of see-sawing could, potentially, keep going back and forth ad nauseum. Might it not be better for the court/s to have to rule on this (assuming the SCOTUS would even hear the case) before another ballot initiative went forward?

  • 13. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:09 am

    and David K…that's when you say….Hey Pal(emphasize the "P")….I'm not the one walking into Walmart to buy clothes, a new phone, white sheets, and groceries all in one shot….I shop at Target…….hehe…lol…<3…Ronnie

  • 14. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Thanx, Ronnie, I needed the laugh this morning! Love, David

  • 15. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:14 am

    This is why it is so important for the courts to rule on this matter. Love, David

  • 16. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:17 am

    I told you…..if that happens I'm taking every bigot out…and not to dinner and a movie……<3…Ronnie

  • 17. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:20 am

    you're welcome…<3…Ronnie

  • 18. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:21 am

    This guy is actually a Democrat – WOW! Now I know why I have a distaste in my mouth for both parties! I wrote in another post (perhaps it was at another site) I have become wary of any candidate, who promises "real change" for us, yet when they get elected – it is more of the same rhetoric and camphor from both parties. Someone made a comment recently regarding this – "Since Boxer and Feinstein are 'on our side', can we give them back?" – I roared, when I read this! It still tickles my funny-bone. Love, David

  • 19. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:27 am

    If there was a repeal then I don't think another DOMA could even get back on the ballot. It would be struck down or denied as unconstitutional. Remember, regardless of the ballot, Walker and the 9th still will make a ruling. A favorable ruling would put a kibosh on any DOMA reenactment. (Pun intended.)

  • 20. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:28 am

    It's the equivalent of…."And if you make me your student body president I will make sure that we get better lunches, less homework, student teacher switch day, a chocolate milk fountain, and a home theater system in the student lounge as well as iPads for everybody so that we don't have to carry those burdensome books anymore!!!!!….Vote for me!!!!….Vote for change!!!!"……….<3….Ronnie

  • 21. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Perhaps, I am confused, Felyx, DOMA, I don't believe was a ballot measure – it was an Act that was passed during the Bush era. Love, David

  • 22. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Please post your source. It is important to be able to read the whole article. Something this radical, albeit ridiculous needs to be sourced and verified. Thank you. Sincerely, Felyx

  • 23. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Yes, I agree, Ronnie, that is why I will not vote for any candidate, who has not shown they are capable of making the changes we seek. BTW, I recently sent e-mails to both Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, asking them specific questions how would they vote, if there was a bill in congress, which would recognize the rights and GLBT community to marry. What I got in return were "Please donate to me" letters. I shook my head in disbelief, these are the people, who represent us. In case anyone is not aware, Diane Feinstein was a memberr of the SF Council, when Harvey Milk was assasinated. She ran her campaign. speaking at San Francisco gathering "promising that if she was elected, she would do….BLAH….BLAH….BLAH! Well guess what she has done nothing other than pander for our votes every election she comes-up for re-election. I, for one, am utterly disgusted at both of them, but the alternatives are far worse – GOP – (pardon me while I puke). In California this year, Meg Whitman is running for Governor of the State (Arnold is ineligible to run again, due to term limits). Yesterday, I sent and e-mail to her campaign office, after visiting her site and seeing no real issues addressed, how does she stand on GLBT marrriage. I aksed for a real letter from her. I will read it carefully and pass along whatever I learn to this website in the form of posting here. Lvoe, David

  • 24. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:42 am

    I thought you all my enjoy this……"Prop 8 – The Musical"….<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hyT7_Bx9o

  • 25. dieter  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:43 am

    I don't have the link..I just got the story from 365gaynews: it is still there.

  • 26. Andrea  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:45 am

    DOMA was signed by President Clinton. So was DADT.

  • 27. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Prop 8 was not The DOMA but it was a Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA can mean specifically Federal DOMA or any DOMA legislation as I have seen it used in the media.

  • 28. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:48 am

    You send back a letter in color pencil that asks "do love me" check yes, no, or maybe" and then ask "Please donate to me"….lol…..<3…Ronnie

  • 29. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Thanx, Ronnie, I noticed Neil Patrick Harris in there too! Great video! Love, David

  • 30. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:52 am

    See, I told you I was confused! LOL

  • 31. Andrea  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:54 am

    California's initiative system is so deeply flawed that even if they lose, Yes-on-8 could still put their unconstitutional law right back on the ballot, and we'd all have to go back to Federal court if it passed. There's no mechanism for stopping such things.

  • 32. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:55 am

    I had a really nice conversation with him on the subway in NYC a few years ago….he's so hottt…he was going home from the gym….he was wearing cargo shorts, new balance sneakers and a sleeveless A&F t-shirt….He's so dreamy and very smart….(I'm sorry I just sounded like a schoolboy crushing on the hunky QB…lol)…..<3…Ronnie

  • 33. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:56 am

    do you have a link to 365gaynews.com – I am having trouble getting it to come-up on my browser.

  • 34. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 2:57 am

    I'm looking for it right now as well….<3…Ronnie

  • 35. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Dave, seeking knowledge does not equate to confusion. If you want to see real confusion at work, read some of the pro-H8 literature. Then you will know what confusion really is!

    Love, Felyx

  • 36. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:01 am

  • 37. alexander  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:05 am

    I just been give a 3 month notice at work.

    You may ask : how's is this related to the discussion on Prop 8 ?

    My partner is not an American citizen.
    We live in Europe – both exiled from our countries, as there is no other way of being together.

    If I or he (he is pursuing a graduate degree at the University) can find a job within the grace period – we might face a separation….and possibly a permanent one.

    For me, time is counted in weeks. It seems that for our Legal System it runs in yearS – with a big "S" !

    DOMA, lack of Federal benefits to residents of states that allowed SSM …are the most unfair and CRUEL stance that our goverment has taken against his L & G citizens.

    I voted for Obama; wrote him, the State dept, and each one of my Senators and Congressman …called them …. No reply, not an issue for them to tackle.

    We are appreciative all your efforts to keep the fight…

    Sorry for rambling…
    Is just a sad time for my family, my partner and myself.

    Oh – forgot to add …we had a child…and we have no idea how to tell him.

  • 38. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:06 am

    No, thanx, I don't read fairy tales from the other side of the rainbow. Love, David

  • 39. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:08 am

    I'm sorry you are going though this….If it was me I would demand NO!!!! you will have to kill me first…..we need to stop letting them control our lives…….NOW!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie

  • 40. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Oh alexander – words alone cannot express my deep sadness at reading what has happened to you! I wish we had better news for you, but sadly most of us, even in America are in the same boat (pun intended – just to lighten the mood). Have you been to the Embassy? I am sorry, I am not familiar with International Law. You might also try contacting HRC (Human Rights Campaign), the Advocate (Gay Newspaper and magazine). I wasn't gonna cry, but this morning, I am crying! Love, David

  • 41. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Another source could be Lamda Legal – this would seem to fit well under their purview. Love, David

  • 42. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:22 am

    No matter how Prop 8 is overturned, by court or ballot, it is certain to help the cause of SSM throughout the nation. It is just so frustrating to know that it may well yet take decades before this level of equality is guaranteed for all Americans.

  • 43. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:24 am

    I know exactly what you mean, Ronnie. I have a sign over my desk that reads, "Is there life before coffee?" LOL Hope you are having a good weekend so far.

  • 44. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Ok so I can't find the article that dieter referenced but I did find this…..The words Hypocrites and and ungodly just ooze out of the topic of this article….I think I am going to throw up….I found at 365gaynews:

    "Ruby-Sachs: Catholic Church Threatens to Abandon the Homeless Over Gay Rights Issue" by Emma Ruby-Sachs 11.12.2009

    Whenever I get up in arms about religious organizations, my friends remind me of all the good work they do. Homeless shelters, feed the hungry, social outreach, community building, these are all part of the church/shule/mosque environment. So I nod and feel a little guilty for being so judgmental.

    But then the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington goes and does something so silly and weird, I get all incensed all over again.

    Today, they announced that they would be pulling their social services in Washington D.C. if the gay rights measure is approved. Their argument: they might be forced to extend employment benefits to same-sex spouses if they choose to keep working with the city.

    First, Catholic charities gets huge amounts of money from D.C. in order to perform their good works. As in, they are being paid to help people, they are not necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart. If they don’t want to provide these services, the city can hire some other group to perform their functions.

    Second, extending employment benefits to the few individuals who work for you who don’t already get those benefits is really so costly that you have to stop serving the 68,000 people in need in D.C.? Really? Ok then, why is it that we want you involved in social services again?’

    (Wow how godly you are being Cathocrites!!!!)….<3…Ronnie

    Third, if we do make politics secular – as in no religious involvement at all – wouldn’t we be making things easier for gay, Jewish, Muslim and athiest homeless people in D.C.?

    I know it’s a knee jerk reaction, but my response to the Catholic threat is “good riddance!”

  • 45. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:26 am

    That note from be was suppose to be at the end sorry about that but you get the gist…..<3…Ronnie

  • 46. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:28 am

    yeah I am….same to you…<3…Ronnie

  • 47. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Oh, Alexander, this just breaks my heart. This is so unfair! Nobody should have to go through this. Please know that you and your family are in my prayers and that I will pass this along to everyone I know who believes in fairness and equality so that they, too, can add you to their prayer lists. I truly hope that the two of you are able to find som means of remaining together permanently. That is what you deserve, especially since you are raising a child together.

  • 48. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:39 am

    http://www.mormonproposition.com/trailer.html

    Here is something I just found from a link that Gregory in Salt Lake City posted yesterday.
    Love, David

  • 49. Linda  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:48 am

    It seems to me that court decisions would help us more, in the long run, than ballot propositions. People can be scared/bullied into voting away others' rights time and time again. But legal precedent is more concrete. We can build on that.

    Also, isn't it our stance that this is a civil rights issue, and therefore should not be decided by popular vote? I'm not at all knowledgeable when it comes to government workings; but it just seems that the more favorable court rulings we can get, the better. People are always going to hate; and we are certainly the 'flavor of the month'; but the court rulings can protect our rights. Votes are fickle, IMHO.

    Love,
    Linda

  • 50. K  |  February 13, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Brian–

    I believe you made a misstatement in your post today when you state " We need to remember here that the court case is only about Prop 8, and marriage in California, not federal law. "

    This case IS ABOUT FEDERAL LAW. (But only as that law applies to Prop 8 and California. ) It's about Constitutional rights.

    If it is determined that lesbians and gays are a suspect class, then there will be nationally-broad implications. This is the big prize.

    Love,
    Kaye

  • 51. Alyson  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:34 am

    I have heard that others are trying to clean up the initiative process in CA and how the constitution can be amended. Talk of a constitutional convention ..they claim that it will not address issues like gay marriage directly ..but if they make it harder to change ..then it will be harder to chane BACK by ballot initiative.

    How does this impact a decision to try to undo it in 2010 or not?

    Alyson

  • 52. Michelle Evans  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I just tried to post a link to an article about this guy and his bill to execute gays, but it did not go through apparently.

    The gist of it is that this guy did not do it now, the bill was introduced 15 years ago. However, he is still working on his anti-gay agenda.

    To find the article use the search words on Google: "Tim Wooldridge Arkansas gay law" and that should get you there.

  • 53. rpx  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Have you tried immigrating to Canda? They have SSM and also it ia a huge country with not a lot of people and they accept a lot of immigrants there.

  • 54. Leslie Wilde  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I agree with David John Lawrence, Andrea, and Linda's posts, that only a win through the courts and especially the SCOTUS level will protect SSM for good.

    I read a lot of commenters on various sites that when told that the majority voting on the minority's civil rights is wrong, like in Prop 8, they often retort that gays were all for voting for SSM and are just sore losers because they lost the vote.

    Now I read Brian Leubitz's column above and he is saying just that, that winning at the ballot box is more valuable than winning in court.

    I strongly disagree. What if Loving v. Virginia never happened and Virginia kept voing by referendum to prevent inter-racial marriage, and Alabama citizens voted to segregate the schools. This needs to be resolved at the Federal Court level, its time.

  • 55. Matthew  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Sure this case does not directly target DOMA, but I don't see how a positive ruling by the Supreme Court cannot bring down DOMA.

    How could the Supreme Court say that the federal constitution forces California to allow same-sex marriage, but it is still OK for the federal government to not recognize same-sex marriage (i.e. DOMA)?

    The federal government is bound by the same constitutional requirements of equal protection and due process as the individual states are.

  • 56. rpx  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:54 am

    @Linda in Post #50 I think you have made the best arguments. Brian is writing this as a California Native so whatever works court or ballet he is fine with it. Not for me and for our family we don't live in Califronia. Once the 9th Circut rules for the Plaintiffs then other GLBT's may bring lawsuites for their states and the precedent will have been set by the 9th Circut in California so every state will fall like dominos. The challenge will then be set up for DOMA as well.
    I TOTALLY agree with Linda, our rights should not be decided by the electorate we are fighting for Constituitional Rights and that goes for everybody in every state. The 9th Circut is going to set case law precedent. And accordign to the way it works from what I understand Judges have to repect what other judges have decided and not re-try the exact same cases. If/when we win in the 9th Circut this won't be re-tried again the next plaintiffs say in Arkansas can simply ask for a Summary Judgement and they will get it without having to go through a trial. I hope there is no ballot measure in California until this case is decided.

  • 57. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:59 am

    This is so cool. Thanks, Ronnie.

  • 58. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:03 am

    rpx, I for one plan to file suit here in North Carolina once we return from our trip to CT to get married, and I will be filing under the Equal protection and the due process clauses of the 14th amendment. After all, if a different gender couple goes to Connecticut by choice and gets married there, then returns to NC, their marriage is still legally valid in NC. But my marriage to my husband is not? That is very discriminatory, and I expect it will make headlinesfar outsid of my current living area.

  • 59. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I don't think a repeal would be able to stop Walker in his tracks….he still is obligated to render a judgement regardless of what happens.

    I think it unlikely the defense would not then seek a repeal of Walker's decision regardless of mootness. (Some appeals are mandatory.) They would still need Walker's judgement overturned if they wanted to then try to reinstate Prop 8.

    Like I have expressed in prior posts….the odds are way in our favor in so many ways!!

  • 60. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:10 am

    There is an issue here Richard….federal DOMA already addresses full faith and credit. You would have to team up with a couple who had tried for a license and was denied (easy enough to do), and show that NC was in some particular way discriminary (not so easy.)

    Having precedence will go along way.

    Of course, I figure you are more on top of all this than I. You will have joined I am sure, one of the organizations that are planning to put forth a legal challenge. I wish you the best of luck! Your win is a win for us all!!!!

  • 61. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Yes, I concur, Felyx. This is what this trial is all about, we need precedent to establish our case. I feel our team of attorneys has done an excellent job in that realm and so many others, as well. Love,David

  • 62. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Well, campers, the hour is catching up to me, I need to take a nap. Will be back later… Love, David

  • 63. fiona64  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Alexander, I wish I could do more than offer my heartfelt sympathy. This is just one more reason why marriage equality needs to happen sooner rather than later.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 64. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:14 am

    BTW, the kaluha certainly helped in that realm, as well.
    Love, David

  • 65. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:14 am

    You make a good point. The answer is one of procedure. The Perry case does not address fed DOMA and so it will not be automatically overturned. The SCOTUS can overturn DOMA but more likely it will have to be challenged separately.

  • 66. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:14 am

    have a nice nap….<3…Ronnie

  • 67. dieter  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:16 am

    I found the link there over on the right side in the tweet links.

  • 68. dieter  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Arkansas: Dem U.S. House candidate on board of group citing execution of gays, bestiality, incest
    by: Pam Spaulding
    Sat Feb 13, 2010 at 07:12:16 AM EST

    Now it's not as if one would expect a politician running for Congress in the state of Arkansas to be a flaming liberal, but when you have a man, former state senator Tim Wooldridge, a Democrat, proudly sitting on the board of an organization called Arkansas Families First Foundation, that announces

    "In times like these we cannot afford to remain silent or 'pitch our tents toward Sodom.'"

    and

    The passionate intensity of the homosexual agenda must not be overlooked. Homosexuality is a leading cause in undermining the traditional family structure

    and (for our heterosexual friends out there)

    Sexual expression outside the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman cheapens God's gift and subverts His perfect design. Whenever the physical acts of sex (or even images associated with sex) are separated from the relational context God intended, they lead to heartache, disappointment and pain. Pray for the state of our unions!

    it's time to shed a light on him and ask whether the Arkansas Democratic Party has any problem with this Clay County Dem candidate for the 1st Congressional District. I'm sure the party will defend this old saw:

    If homosexual "rights" activists have their way, marriage will become a question of sexual rights and subjective, individual interpretations. Polygamy, incestuous relationships, and even non-sexual relationships might be called marriage, and this would be considered an infringement of personal rights.

    WTF? Even NON-SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS? So now one has to have forced sexual relations in a union in order for it to be valid? How is THAT aspect of marriage any business of the state? Do they know how many heterosexual relationships that "non-sexual" could cover? And as far as incest comparisons and the rest, it's no surprise — after all, failed presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee had no problem going there. AFFF also believes that if you're gay there is a "real option individuals have to leave the lifestyle."

    David McAvoy of Blue Arkansas brought this live fundie wire to our attention and broke this story.

    Now, I'm sending out some questions to the Wooldridge campaign and others running for Congress. In Wooldridge's questions, I plan on asking him directly about this. This issue is not about what Wooldridge thinks about a particular issue like marriage equality-it's about his view of human beings that happen to be different and about fundamental decency and character. If Wooldridge belonged to a group that made similar disgusting comments about African Americans or Jews then his ability to represent the people of this district, all the people, would be called into question. It's no different here when he's sitting on the board of an organization that advances the hatred of gay people and drags Christianity through the ditch while it's at it.

    Senator Wooldridge shouldn't be touting his work for this group. He should be ashamed of it.

    But it was this bit of business at the Arkansas Families First Foundation that brings the homo-hate right over the top:

    The heart of God regarding homosexuality can be determined in the following Scriptures:

    …The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18 and 20). In this list of forbidden sexual unions we read: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."16 Later, death is the prescribed penalty of the "detestable" sex act.17 How detestable is homosexuality? It is in the same detestable listing with child sacrifice (18:21) and beastiality (18:23)!

    Now you know that the defense will be that the org is just interpreting the Bible, but how retrograde is Wooldridge? In 1995 he submitted a bill, HB1307, calling for the institution of public hangings at county courthouses. Again, Blue Arkansas:

    Worse, he embarrassed himself in the past by introducing a bill that would have brought back public hangings. Wooldridge said he regretted doing so and wouldn't do it again, and if memory serves he said he was trying to make some kind of point. Regardless, it was stupid and distasteful, and African Americans in this district were, shall we say, less than thrilled.

    He also explained his legislation as "a favor I tried to do for a friend." So in Wooldridge's world, since he's on the board of AFFF, he should be asked whether calling for the public hanging of gays would be making some kind of point as well.

    So back to the Arkansas Democratic Party. Exactly how does it square a pol like Tim Wooldridge with its own rules of membership for the party or its own platform?

    CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
    The Democratic Party of Arkansas has been prominent in the evolving process of empowering all Arkansans. In keeping with the progress and expansion of civil rights and liberties in our state and across the nation, we pledge to continue our fight against discrimination or deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or socio-economic status, disability or any other characteristic unrelated to ability. We also reaffirm the constitutionally established rights of privacy and choice.

    Perhaps folks might inquire or Tweet:

    Chairman Todd Turner
    DPA Headquarters
    1300 West Capitol Avenue
    Little Rock, AR 72201
    Phone: 501.374.2361
    Fax: 501.376.8409
    Email: info@arkdems.org http://twitter.com/ArkDems

    BTW, the conservatives are trying to rationalize this one away, and it smells like day-old fishwrap.

    First of all, FFF is simply not a hate group. They represent primarily the Arkansas Church of Christ members on moral issues such as the right to life, the expansion of gambling, and defense of traditional marriage. The last stance is the one that Blue Arkansas uses to brand them a hate group. FFF's work is very similar to the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council where I at one time served. I worked there when Wooldridge was in the Arkansas Senate and he was a solid social conservative. I don't think he has ever shied away from that.

    Second, if liberals think calling out fellow Democrats for being too conservative is going to hurt them, then they are way out of touch with Arkansas values, particularly in the First District.

    Nice compliment to pay the voters of that district.

  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I just read that article I have never been more inclined to be even more Gay that I am right now as well calling My italian family members through marriage (shhh…they are in the Mob) to supply this guy with some cement filled Gucci shoes…yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

  • 70. PDXAndrew  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:37 am

    If I've understood the previous articles, if Walker and the 9CC rule that Prop8 is against the Federal Constitution, that would make it a whole lot easier to overturn the similar . Not to mention open the door for similar challenges in other circuit districts.

    A 'win' at the ballots may actually hurt efforts in other states. I can just imagine the Reich-wingers saying "See? See how the heathens in California have allowed this evil to take over? We can't let that happen here!"

    I say, we need the win in the courts. We need to fight for the Freedoms of EVERYONE, not just Californians.

  • 71. PDXAndrew  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Oops… sorry… accidentally didn't end the tag for the link to the Oregon Measure 36… I guess I still need my coffee :)

  • 72. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I feel I that I need to post this video now after just finding this….Billboard had released it Sexiest musicians and Number 1 is ADAM LAMBERT!!!! at 20%….OMG!!! Hows that crow Bigots?!!!!!!…….<3…Ronnie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOqRimwwwe4

  • 73. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:53 am

    check out the list for both female and male @
    http://www.billboard.com/#/news/poll-results-pop-…

  • 74. Kathleen  |  February 13, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Felyx,

    I've always wondered about DOMA and "full faith and credit" guarantees of the US Constitution. It seems to me that the federal DOMA is in direct violation of the Constitution and that the only reason it stands is that no one has challenged it. Advocates have been afraid to take it up with the current Court composition.

    Any Constitutional scholars want to comment?

  • 75. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:12 am

    @#63. Yes, and Felyx, that is another issue also. But you see, the primary one here is the inequality of the fact that if my broher were to find another woman to marry (he is a widower), and they got married in another state and came back home t NC, their marriage would still be valid under reciprocity, whereas mine will not. There is also the fact that by forcing me to go out of state in order to get LEGALLY married, that places undue financial burden on my that is not encountered by couples who are heterosexual. So North Carolina really has BenZion and me over two barrels at one time. And I will fight this. We have to win this, and we have to win this on as many fronts as we can at one time. So do I kep everyone posted, or do you think the MSM will do that?

  • 76. K  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:17 am

    in response to PDXAndrew's of 12:37–The best case scenario would be for gays and lesbians to be found to be a suspect class at the Supreme Court level. I believe that once that happens, every state has to change its laws, just like what followed Loving.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:32 am

    First this Q goes out only to my P8TT friends only….so this is what I find interesting….Adultery is illegal in some states…yeah?…and since Marriage Equality is illegal or not legal in some states…it is safe to say that LGBT couples could marry the opposite orientation in order to receive benefits and protections for their families…yeah?…..Ok so isn't that considered adultery and in additional LGBT people can marry their heterosexual friends or Remain in the closet such as Jim McGreevy(spelling) and still commit adultery based on the fact that they are married but are having sexual relations with their rightfully orientated partners….Does that make sense?….So in a way by doing this they are actually promoting adultery…yeah?….it could also be said that they are promoting bigamy, and polygamy as well…yeah? after all Homosexuality is not illegal but as we saw in the Kitty video she was clearly given a marriage license to marry with the guy that the issuer knows Kitty isn't going home with…yes? ….<3…Ronnie

  • 78. Kathleen  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:34 am

    ABSOLUTELY keep me posted, Richard. I don't trust MSM to cover these issues, let alone cover them well.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Without addressing the essence of your question, Ronnie, I don't think adultery is illegal anywhere – at least not as a crime. I think there remain states where it is either (1) grounds for divorce (in states that don't have no-fualt divorce), or (2) can be a reason to favor one spouse over the other in divorce proceedings, or (3) can lead to a tort usually called "alienation of affection."

    This is all a vague memory from an independent study I did over a decade ago looking at what criminalization there was of adult consensual sexual acts in the various states. If someone knows of a state where adultery is a crime, I'd be interested in knowing.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Thank you Kathleen….I found a list but it just lists the states and not what the specific laws are….But in NJ Kitty would be able to marry a man and get a CU with her partner….therefor polygamy/bigamy by default….yes?….<3..Ronnie

  • 81. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Thank you, Kathleen. I will keep you posted. Also, here in North Carolina, adultery is a misdemeanor, and is also grounds for a lawsuit for monetary damages under "alienation of affections." I have seen that law acted upon twice in the20 years I have been in this state, and both times it made headlines statewide. I wonder if Elizabeth Edwards is aware of the fact that sh can have John placed on house arrest, and can sue Rielle Hunter because of her affair with John?

  • 82. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Way to go, Ronnie! Who said disco is dead? With this clip from Glambert, it sounds to me as if disco is very much alive, just redecorated.

  • 83. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Wow! Thanks, Ronnie, I loved the video! Love, David

  • 84. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:02 am

    @#66. I will definiely keep you posted on this, Kathleen. Also, since I have seen so much on this site about "gay lifestyle" I have taken the liberty of emailing Courage Campaign about the possiblity of being a guest blogger and posting about a typical day in my gay lifestyle. Who knows wh might read it and see that mine is not so different from theirs? And it could even give others the courage to step up and write about their lives.

  • 85. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Ok so here is another hypothetical….Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman empire until 380AD it also was not est. until the birth of Jesus which theoretically was 4BC….It is also theoretically evident that the majority of the ancient world was polytheistic until white man brought monotheism with them as well as disease…and since none of us were there how is it that most of us ASSume that what is written in a book that has been rewritten thousands of times is first hand knowledge since the documents were not written at the time said events occurred?….and at that instance the book of mormon is only a recent modern day creation on the same level of scientology which has become a global religion in the past few decades….No offense to those who follow certain religions but at one point in time. theoretically the majority of the world knew nothing about God, Jesus, and what not….JMHO!….but like I said I am not moore like "it" and I for one do not believe everything I read…I was not there so for me anything that has to do with anything before I was of age to know better, say 5yo, is just a infinite list of theories, hypotheticals, speculation, propaganda, opinion, hearsay, and well a lot of it is hogwash…..<3….Ronnie

  • 86. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Actually, Ronnie, Christianity was not around until after the crucifixion of Yeshua ben Yoseph, which came 33.5 years later. And it was not even called that until Antioch. But you are so right, how can anyone who has not seen the original manuscripts say that what we have now is hat was written or even intended? that smacks of trying to read the mind of HaShem. I for one, cannot do that. I don't even try. All I do is try to live the best life I can each day, and reach out to help those I can help. Some that I reach out to reject the help that is offered, and while it hurts, I realize that I have to let them go and move on to the next one and try to help them.

  • 87. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:25 am

    I want to address your question with this, Ronnie. To begin with, contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers were very much opposed to calling the United States of America a Christian nation. As a matter of fact, at least one of the signers of the Declaration of Indepedence and concurrently the original US Constitution, was himself an athiest. While it has been debated, most scholars agree that Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to Religion and State joining and become one. What is also interesting is the concept of "Separation of Church and State" was written into the Constitution to assure that no one "religion" would have the authority to declare itself the "primary religion of the US. These principles were furthered by the passage of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and subsequently by the passage of the 14th Amendment (sorry, I can't recall, which one it was).
    Love, David

  • 88. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Kathleen,

    No constitutional scholar or lawyer am I! But I will venture an opinion until such time as one comes along…

    I think you have a pretty good take on Federal DOMA. It's sole purpose was first to not recognize gays who marry legally in any state and secondly to prevent any married couple in one state from being able to sue another state into recognizing a same-sex marriage. Richard can get married and challenge but Federal Law (not Federal Constitutional Law) will prevent the lawsuit from any immediate success.

    If / When Richard et al., challenge the state on the issue, they will first be challenging the state and will immediately fail (most likely.) The appeal will then go to a NC Constitutional Court similar to prop 8 going to CA SC. There constitutionality will be challenged in regards to 14th (if not others) and the Federal Constitutional Faith and Credit Clause. At that level, and at the apellate level, DOMA, which is a legislative law and not a US Fed Const. Law, will be challenged.

    This type of case is already in the works in several states. I do not have direct knowledge, just professional friends who talk about such things, but the chatter I hear seems reasonable and consistant. The primary issue is one of funding and opportunity. NC may or may not be the best state to make this challenge. Lambda Legal and other organizations can only bring to trial so many cases at a time due to resources.

    By getting married now and staying connected to the gay powers that be, he (and spouse) puts himself in an excellent position to be called upon if NC does indeed end up being the battleground for this issue.

    NY is doing just this. By allowing out of state OOS recognition it is setting itself up for equal rights challenges. Washington, likewise, is setting up Congress to be forced to repeal DOMA. By law congress cannot recognize same sex marriages; by law they must veto, actively approve or passively approve WADC district laws. So far they have passively approved WADC to allow OOS SSM and currently they are in the process of allowing SSM in WADC itself. This puts congress in bind with public opinion and with legal authority when it comes to DOMA. Courts can opine that, since congress did not feel the need to uphold either part 1 or part 2 of DOMA it therefore must not be legally significant enough for a state court to uphold. (Congressional passive acceptance of SSM and OOS SSM does not automatically repeal DOMA; it just shows the legislation for what it is, hate legislation that cannot hold muster when actually put to the test.)

    A long reply, an accurate enough one I think, but most of all I hope it helps you to view the large scale nature of what is occuring. This issue is not a matter of if but of how soon.

    Love,
    Felyx

  • 89. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:40 am

    see you guys see where I coming from….Thank you….I come to these conclusion specifically because of theoretical American History predating all European of European influence…..There was no "God" or "Jesus" on this side of the world theoretically until that period of time….but we ignore that….you would think if everybody came from Adam & Eve and knew the word of God that there would be evidence of it in all cultures…. but incidentally there is not…I'm sorry I felt a little preachy and I felt the need to show somewhat the extent of my knowledge and beliefs of the world based on my 25 * 1/2 years on it….. I consider myself an Earthian….and I can honestly say that I worship Gaia (Mother Earth) for Earth is the only constant in the ever changing appearance of it…I like the series "Life after people"….it really shows how much we are nothing and by we I mean all people compared to everything else and when we are gone the planet can and will take back everything….<3…Ronnie

  • 90. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Thank you, Ronnie, Gaia is who I believe too. And by the way, I don't believe in Adam and Eve, either. There is another older belief that predates Judaism, and all of the other faiths of the world by eons. It says, simply put, there is no "Creator God" it is based upon Evolution. I very much believe in evolution, as a very vialbe means by which all of the world came into creation. This is something that most of the religions of the world cannot explain. They choose to call it "science not based upon the facts" and of course, they rely upon the Bible, as all truth! – Rubbish! Love, David

  • 91. Ben  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:55 am

    This doesn't answer all the questions in my mind. EVEN if a "Repeal Prop 8 and Restore Marriage Amendment" were passed, unanimously even, at the polls, that's not enough for me. Fundamental Rights do NOT come at the whim of a majority of the electorate. If we are "happy" or "content" with just winning at the ballot box, we are giving credence to the idea that our rights are only valid when/if the majority says so. Such a "victory" may end up with marriage equality (in California at least), but would have been done in a manner I find unconscionable. Marriage is a fundamental right, and fundamental rights cannot hang on the whim of a simple majority.

  • 92. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

    I like to use this hypothetical when painting a picture….. You are born…yada yada….you die….depending on what happens you either become maggot/insect food and/or plant food….the worm/or what have you taken from your resting area becomes fish bait and/or the fish gets away……Yoggi eats said fish….digests said fish….releases said fish though bodily means….said bodily means fertilizes the ground…a plant grows…..in other words we are all full of Shite!…..Since the word soul was made by a human/Neanderthal/ HOMOsapien…and I am not "God" I don't know what happens to that…the same can be said for all animal and plant species….what it all comes down too is "Shite"….well and maybe water weight but a good work out at the gym can take care of that…..lol….<3….Ronnie

  • 93. dieter  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

    well I got some bad news for religious folks who tout the whole adam and eve story. If in fact Eve was made from Adam's rib, then in all actuality…Eve was born a man.
    she would be a DNA replicate, and would consist entirely of male DNA.
    so lookie there…it WAS Adam and Steve after all!!

  • 94. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Thanx, Ben, that is why this court case is so important a win at this level will at least give us support at the appeals level and ultimately, the SCOTUS.

  • 95. Ben  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Adultery is still definitely classified as a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 134), but then again, so is sodomy (Article 125).

  • 96. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Thanx, Ronnie that jus' 'bout covers it SHITE, don't it! ROFLMAO Love, David

  • 97. Lou  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:04 am

    That's not exactly true Dieter. That all executions be at the county courthouse by public hanging was a bill he introduced in the Arkansas legislature in 1995. The bill made no mention of gays, just making executions public by hanging, and it failed.

    While he may in fact hold such a perverted view, he did not make such a suggestion publicly.

    He does sit on the board of the Arkansas Family First Foundation which does hold for the biblical penalties in Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18 and 20).

    No doubt these reptilian brained clowns need watching; we also need to get the facts right.

  • 98. Tim  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:04 am

    I agree with David,leslie,linda, Andrea and others!
    I don't like my civil rights voted on by the masses! Masses that can be brainwashed and corrupted through the riligious rights FALSE campain ads.
    I dont see this issue being put to sleep untill it goes to the US supreme court.State by state is not working.
    I scrolled to the bottom before reading ALL post, so forgive me if someone explained why a ballot measure would be more benifical. I know Brian tried to explain it but dont get it!
    I thought I read in an earlier post that Perry v Schwarzenegger could possibly change the laws in a lot of the western states not just Ca. I think if it was up to popular vote,not judicial, there would still be laws prohibiting interracial marriage today.We need to go federal (or postal) hehe. Love Tim…

  • 99. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:16 am

    You're welcome David K….I just thought I would cut though the shite…..lol…..(pun intended)……<3….Ronnie

  • 100. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:17 am

    That's why we love you – you are so good at cutting through the shite and getting to the core of the debate! (pun intended) Love, David

  • 101. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:18 am

    I prefer having laws that protect us all that are not necessarily based on opinion.

    I will however put in a word on behalf of Brian, if it is voted in then that means we have a broad base of support and it bodes better for all of us. (There were rules at school too but bullies somehow seemed to get around that without any problems.)

    That being said, I still say I would rather see judges balance out public opinion.

  • 102. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:19 am

    I agree…lets go postal….and STFU these total baldwins…..they think they are going to win in the long run?…..uh….as if…..they are like totally last season….I couldn't help myself…..lol……<3…Ronnie

  • 103. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:21 am

    awe…thank you…..<3…Ronnie

  • 104. Kathleen  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I stand corrected on the issue of criminal statutes for adultery. I guess some states still have them on their books.

  • 105. fiona64  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Not only that, when Patrick Henry wanted to specify Christianity as the national religion, he was roundly shouted down.

    More information on America's secular foundation can be found here: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secul…

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 106. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I heard a rumor there might be some updates for the UCMJ…..hehehehhehe!

  • 107. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:41 am

    And with that I would like to share this video I just found on youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVGxD_G2ao

  • 108. Sheryl Carver  |  February 13, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Thanks, Brian!

    I'm the person who posted the question. I really wanted to know, so I had also emailed "prop8trial@couragecampaign.org" & the AFER site as well. I thought the question might get lost in all the comments, which is why I originally emailed. Then I figured I might as well cover all the bases & posted it on this site.

    One thing I hadn't thought about was that SCOTUS might delay if it looked like a new prop might overturn 8. Rascally little devils, aren't they!

    Personally I'd still like to see us win in Federal Court, especially if we could get Suspect Class status. But who knows what will happen? Somehow, my crystal ball must have been delivered to the wrong address, just like my copy of the homosexual agenda.

    Thanks again for all your work, especially helping us legal neophytes understand what's going on.

    Love,
    Sheryl

  • 109. Ben  |  February 13, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I'm right there with you, Tim. I don't like having to run a campaign to ask nicely for the rights that are already mine (or ought to be) as an American. Furthermore, just as easily as we rely on the masses to give us our rights, those same masses can take them away. Fundamental rights do not derive their existence in the largess of the majority: they are, in the immortal words of Jefferson, inalienable.

    I almost feel like King Charles I of England when he stood before his own trial and refused to give a plea because he did not view the court as having the authority to try him. I do no view a majority vote as having the authority to remove (or give) inalienable rights to me, and I refuse to plead for them.

    That said, however, public votes on these issues can be VERY useful and beneficial politically. Campaigns like Prop 8 in 2008 put a very public face on the insidiousness and inequalities we face. It forced the "H8ers" into the light and showed the world who they are and what they really believe. Keeping our fight in the forefront publicly only increases the likelihood that we finally win.

    Also, public campaigns are fantastic barometers of how the average American feels on issues. The SCOTUS has traditionally not wanted to get "too far ahead" of the public, so wins at the ballot box, even in a few states (like CA or ME), can send a message that Americans are ready for these changes. Electoral wins may send signals to the justices in our favor.

  • 110. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Thanx, Ronnie, I nearly missed the video, with everything else that is going on here. Thanx so much. Love, David

  • 111. Skemono  |  February 13, 2010 at 9:57 am

    As the Court showed in Loving v. Virginia, on the big social issues of the day, the Court likes to have somebody else blaze the trail. In that instance, it was the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

    Um. There weren't any other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws. There was a case in Nevada with Harry Bridges, and a case in Arizona, Oyama v. ONeill, but neither of those reached the supreme court of their state. So there weren't other state supreme court rulings striking down antimiscegenation laws unless you went back to Reconstruction, but most later antimiscegenation cases simply pretend those never happened.

  • 112. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:02 am

    You're welcome…..<3…Ronnie….btw…did you see my cover of "America" from "Westside Story"?…..it was on the kitty story.

  • 113. G.Rod  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Was it not in rural Maine that their affirmative vote failed? David, while any favorable outcome is a desirable outcome, the hours you spent in your smaller community remain necessary to win the day for social acceptance.
    In the last year, victories and losses in the New England States as well as NY and NJ tell us many factors come into play that cannot be simply characterized as liberal vs. conservative.
    Hopefully, March 4 in DC is another occasion to build momentum and strengthen motivation. Congress will have acquiesced. That too can influence public opinion elsewhere.

  • 114. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Thanks, Ronnie! Once again, you have done well! Keep up the good work!!! You have a talent for finding just the right video!!!!♥ ♥ ♥

  • 115. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Another thing Is I want some random baldwins voting on Civil/Fundamental/LGBT/Human Rights……This is not American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, or So You Think You Can Dance…..its our LIVES!!!!!!!…….enough said….<3…Ronnie

  • 116. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I meant I don't want that…..ahh…you get the point……<3…Ronnie

  • 117. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:26 am

    You mean, I wasn't the only one whose copy of the gay agenda got misdelivered!?! Oh, Sheryl I am so glad to hear that. I thought maybe I just wasn't considered gay enough because I don't wear frilly pink dresses to work, LOL!

    (Yes, I am being sarcastic here folks!)

  • 118. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Yeppers, I agree, Ronnie. Since this case is like to make it to SCOTUS, I am assuming that's why some of the people believe this case will not be heard this year. The other scenario is of course interesting, as well. If we win at this level and the next trial level, I doubt PropH8 would appeal to the Supreme Court and run the risk of losing there, since if they did, they would automatically lose in all campaigns, etc. Love, David

  • 119. Ronnie  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:31 am

    I'm going to download mine when I get a iPad in a few months….lol……<3….Ronnie

  • 120. G.Rod  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:33 am

    This November 2009 article gives those interested a current Canadian perspective. Alberta had been the least receiptive of the provinces in writing into their provincial Charter of Rights a clause related to sexual orientation (SO). The federal charter which acknowledges SO forced their hand as it has paramouncy.

    The significant observation is that SSM is an non-issue.

  • 121. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Wow, now how is that fair, America is supposed to be the land of the free…yet Canada gets it before us?

  • 122. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Well, since nobody else got their copy, yet…I don't feel so bad! I wonder if will come in colors, ya' know, like the rainbow?

  • 123. David Kimble  |  February 13, 2010 at 10:45 am

    dang it no! and here I missed something else! Just doesn't seem fair, does it? Love, David

  • 124. G.Rod  |  February 13, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Check out Rhoda Island and New York.
    Did not California post Nov 08 agree to recognize all marriage that we performed in other jurisdications prior to Prop 8?

  • 125. Felyx  |  February 13, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Actually I do have a copy of the Homosexual Agenda. Seriously about 8 years ago Concerned Women for America published a pamphlet regarding the Homosexual Agenda…No Joke!

    It was a little scary but I remember being pissed I was never formally recruited….I felt like an outcast in my own social group. (That was before I got a little older and wised up!LOL)

  • 126. Ben  |  February 13, 2010 at 11:20 am

    David,
    I've thought about the appeal strategy a bit, too. It seems to me that what REALLY matters is the 9th Circuit decision (either en banc or just the regular panel). No one denies that Walker's decision will be appealed there. Now if we lose in the 9th Circuit, I could easily see the SCOTUS denying to hear the case and there it dies. However, if we win there, and the Pro-H8 side chooses not to appeal, then gay marriage would be a federal right in 13 states, but not the other 37. For such a hot-button issue, that situation cannot last very long. Someone, somewhere will soon take issue and the SCOTUS will HAVE to do something. It seems to me that the REAL challenges lie at the 9th Circuit (and of course SCOTUS). We could lose this one, but we HAVE to win the next two levels to end up being successful.

  • 127. Ben  |  February 13, 2010 at 11:23 am

    (continuing thought from above)

    And that federal right to marry in those 13 states would have to apply to things like taxes, military benefits, government employment benefits and all the other benefits that DOMA denies us. In that instance, the IRS would have to recognize gay marriages in Idaho, but not in Iowa. Military service members who live in Hawaii can have their lesbian partners get full widow benefits when they die in Afghanistan, but not those soldiers who live in Virginia. It would be pure chaos.

  • 128. Linda  |  February 13, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Hey, after we all get a copy of the 'Homosexual Agenda', can we please distribute copies of the 'Gay Lifestyle' manual? I have no idea how I'm supposed to be living. I mean, for all I know I could be living the 'straight Lifestyle'. Horrors!

  • 129. Linda  |  February 13, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    I would also like to respond to the misconception that gays cannot have children of their own. We absolutely can! What an excellent idea, I might add, for lesbian couples to seek out a gay sperm donor. I'm tired of the intimation that we are somehow rendered neuter simply because we are gay. How ridiculous! We are fully capable of reproducing.

    Does that possibility scare them???

  • 130. Lori  |  February 13, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    @Kathleen
    Not a constitutional scholar, although I hope to become more of one. When I first looked at the full faith and credit clause, I instantly thought that that meant states had to recognize other states' marriages. However, I found out that states tend to have more ability to deny or acknowledge other states' marrigae laws. This is not to do with SSM at all, but dates back to the early 1900s and Nevada's quickie marriages and divorces.
    Hope you found this helpful!
    Love,
    Lori

  • 131. Kathleen  |  February 13, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I heard Patt Morrison interviewing Sam Harris recently, particularly on his writing about the fallacious claim that the only morality is one based on religion, and it struck me that what he discusses is pertinent to the discussions we've been having here.

    For those who aren't familiar with Sam Harris, here's a good introduction: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=…

    Here's an excerpt from the above page:
    "One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational"

  • 132. Alyson  |  February 13, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    I hear many of the federal level homophobic representatives (like mine – walley herger R -CA) – say that Marriage should remain a states issue and it's up to the states to decide. doesn't that thinking ALONE – invalidate DOMA? If the right wingers really think it is a states issue then states that chose to recognize same sex couples should sue the federal governement for NOT letting them have the autonomy for determining who is married in their state. In the case of inter-racial marriages ..if a state recognized it – did the federal government automatically recognize it? It seems that that part of DOMA is certainly vulnerable to a challenge.

  • 133. Eric Ross  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    A win on the Federal level is not a guarantee. That's why it's so important to continue to fight for marriage equality on the State level while the Federal trial happens. Our opponents are not stopping on the State level, so it would be stupid for us to slow down and let them surpass us. Go to http://www.RestoreEquality2010.com to help out with the State fight.

    In regards to the other side trying to repeal marriage equality in CA again once it passes, they won't try that because it would be a lost cause for them. If it passes in CA, and younger generations are increasingly more supportive of the issue, then it would be a huge waste of money and time for our opponents to put it back on the ballot. They will either spend their time with more abortion initiatives, or taking away marriage rights in other states.

  • 134. Eric Ross  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    @PDXAndrew – a win at the ballot box in CA would help other states in so many different ways. For one, it will be the first time same-sex marriage has ever won at the ballot box, which would put a stop to undefeated winning streak that our opponents have.

    Another thing to think about is that our opponents put so much money into the Prop 8 campaign because they knew it would be difficult. After they won, they immediately went after Maine, New York, and New Jersey. Now they are going after DC, New Hampshire, etc. If we get marriage equality back on the ballot in 2010, our opponents will need to take a step back and re-evaluate their 2010 plan. Will they keep picking off all the other states, or will they put the majority of their money back into fighting in CA.

    I support a ballot initiative in CA, because it is a national strategy that also helps other states. Plus we can't stop fighting on the State level because the Federal trial is not a guaranteed win.

  • 135. Eric Ross  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    @Ben – you are right. When the Federal court struck down the ban on interracial marriages, more than half the states already allowed interracial marriages. The same was true with women's right to vote. Over half the country already allowed it before Congress did. If history repeats itself, we need more states on board with same-sex marriage.

  • 136. Eric Ross  |  February 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    @Sheryl – Don't we already have suspect class status now that we were included in the hate crimes bill?

  • 137. Matt  |  February 13, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    As a matter of fact, Bob Baar (the former congressman who actually wrote DOMA), has recently called for DOMA's repeal based on precisely that same argument. He explained that DOMA's original intent was to protect state's rights in regard to recognizing SSM, but has concluded that the exact opposite has been the result.

  • 138. David Kimble  |  February 14, 2010 at 12:26 am

    Well, SHITE, now I really do feel like I missed out on something precious! I am sorry you had to go through that Felyx. Love, David

  • 139. Sheryl Carver  |  February 14, 2010 at 2:26 am

    @Eric – Based on what I've read on this site, I think we have Suspect Class status in CA & some other states, but not at the Federal level. "States rights" is clearly a 2-edged sword, no matter how good it is in general.

  • 140. Leslie Wilde  |  February 14, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Perez v. Sharp at the California Supreme Court level struck down anti-miscegenation laws in California in 1948, a full 20 years before the SCOTUS did in Loving v. Virginia, tha's what the article means, the SCOTUS prefers when other states get out in front of them first, pave the way.

  • 141. rpx  |  February 14, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Absplutly correct Linda! Reproduction only takes 3 things, an egg, a sperm and a hospital uterus. My lesbian daughter in law had 2 out of 3 and so she used an anonymous sperm donor from a fertility clinic. I LOVE my twin grandchildren. Yes gays and lesbians reproduce and create families.

  • 142. rpx  |  February 14, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Everytime I hear that phrase, "The homosexual agenda" I always want to respond with. "I imagine it is not much different than the hetrosexual agenda" Everytime you hear/read homosexual agenda come right back with the hetrosexual agenda.

  • 143. JC  |  February 14, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Why is it OK to vote on my civil rights? I understand the pragmatism of the vote–showing the courts that popular opinion has changed–but I deeply resent the principle involved and won't support it, even though I'm one of the 18,000+…..

  • 144. Straight Dave  |  February 14, 2010 at 4:42 am

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done exactly that and filed suit in Federal court claiming DOMA forces the state to violate its own laws and discriminate against its own citizens in distribution of medicare and other benefits like not funding the burial of military veteran *legal* LGBT spouses in veterans cemetaries. http://massmarrier.blogspot.com/2009/07/doma-suit…

    There's another federal DOMA suit from MA. Eleven SS couples claim equal protection violation re taxes, benefits, etc, including the surviving spouse of former US congressman Gerry Studds. http://www.glad.org/doma

    The second one has a pretty fair chance of success according to most local legal observers, largely because the portion of DOMA it challenges was so blatantly unconstitutional before the ink even dried. Two couples living side by side (1 gay, 1 straight), legally married under identical state rules, possessing identical documents to that effect, are being treated differently by the Feds.

    If that's not a gold-plated Equal Protection violation that everyone this side of Antonin Scalia can see with both eyes closed, I don't know what is. I'd love to see the defense arguments on this one, which will likely be Obama's DOJ and/or Solicitor General. How can he possibly claim DOMA is unconstitutional and then send his guys out to defend it? Didn't he swear to defend the Constitution? He should look to Jerry Brown for guidance.

  • 145. Linda  |  February 14, 2010 at 5:15 am

    JC–I agree! Whether we could garner the majority of votes or not is not the issue. My civil rights should not be dependent on the 'good will' of the majority of people. Who has given them the right to decide what my civil rights are? That is the whole point of the 14th amendment. And that's why our adversaries do NOT want us to be recognized as a suspect class; because if that happens, they no longer have the power to control what we can and cannot do. We would become equal in the eyes of the law.

    I do believe we are headed in that direction; I also think that it is going to take a long time to get there. And obviously, even after we have won the court battles, we (and those who follow after us) will still face prejudice. Just like every other minority group still faces prejudice. BUT…the law would be on our side at that point; and that prejudice would be labeled as wrong and illegal.

    In the meantime, my girlfriend and I will continue with our plans for our 'together' life. And I will NOT wait for the public's permission to call her my wife. That is who she will be to me, and that is how I will refer to her. Let those who oppose us feel uncomfortable for once. I will not live a life of apology and shame. I'm finally out of that closet; I refuse to go back in.

    Just sayin' !

  • 146. Straight Dave  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Go, Linda!
    I applaud your determination to take control of your own life and relationship, without waiting for approval. Yes, some people may find that uncomfortable, but that's just too bad. It's not your job to create their false comfort at your own expense, although I do appreciate the conflicts this might create for others in the same situation as yours. It ain't easy to appear uppity.

    You are right to push forward. It will put your opponents on their back foot and in a position to embarrass themselves by responding stupidly. For potential supporters on the fence, your leadership may just be the thing that tips the scales in your favor. They will now have a real-life familiar example to refer to, rather than just some hypothetical stranger they don't really care about. That made all the difference to me in my journey from ignorance to timid to acceptance to supportive.

    Lock that closet door and throw away the key!
    I wish the best of luck and a life of happiness to you and your wife.

  • 147. Straight Dave  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:29 am

    What are the moderator's rules?

    I don't post often, so there may be some local customs I am unaware of. I posted a comment 2 hours ago that is still "awaiting moderation". But the most recent one I sent was posted immediately.

    Is the decision based on length, content, key words, embedded URL's, or just abritrary discretion?

    I'm assuming anything awaiting moderation is not visible to others.
    Just curious, since it was intended to be a supportive and helpful post, not contentious or evil. It did include the word "swear", as in …. to uphold the Constitution, but not an actual swear word :)

  • 148. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Some comments go into moderation if there is more than one link in the copy.

  • 149. Ronnie  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:32 am

    As far as I know it has something to do with the embedded URL's…….I have had the same problem it will appear when/if the moderator's approve it……..<3….Ronnie

  • 150. dieter  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:44 am

    I got all the facts right. How you read or interpret them is YOUR problem.

  • 151. Straight Dave  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Thank guys.
    Ronnie – I finally just "got" your sideways heart emoticon. I had never seen it anywhere before your usage of it on this forum. It's been 2 or 3 weeks now looking at that thing and scratching my head….even in the face of several others signing off with love. God, I'm thick!
    It's cool and clever.

    Full disclosure ignoramus warning:
    The best I had managed to come up with was to turn it the other way and it looked like a butt. I think I feel comfortable enough with this gang to admit it and not worry about ruffling your feathers. It was an innocent mistake but I did wonder amount missing some secret code.

  • 152. Ronnie  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Lol….yeah i use that bcuz its quicker then typing the words and nobody else has used it so I guess its become my icon….<3…Ronnie

  • 153. Felyx  |  February 14, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Hehehe….Dave, you were not the only one! <3 Felyx

  • 154. David Kimble  |  February 14, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Okay, I will admit it took me a few days to figure it too, but when I did – I thought – GENIUS! <3 David

  • 155. David Kimble  |  February 14, 2010 at 7:03 am

    BTW, Straight Dave, I roared, when I read, "but I did wonder amount missing some secret code" – Yeppers that's part of the Homosexual secret agenda, ya' know ;)

  • 156. Sheryl Carver  |  February 14, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I didn't get it until I finally Googled it. I was turning my head the "wrong" way, & I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that what first came to mind was in the X-rated category, but then I figured if it was naughty, it would have been quickly addressed by this site's administrator.

    I didn't want to admit that I was so outdated that I didn't know what it was & finally realized Google might be the way to go. I know, the only dumb question is the unasked one, but …

    Love, with blushes,
    Sheryl

  • 157. Shun  |  February 14, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Also, perhaps it is worth a try to contact the folks at Immigration Equality (.org). They are the people working very hard to make sure that same-sex partners (not 'married' couples) will get the rights to sponsor each other for immigration to the States. They are working to make sure the Uniting American Families Act go through.

    Check them out!

  • 158. Skemono  |  February 14, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Yes, I know all about Perez. But the article continues "and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws"… and there weren't any. That was my point.

    Incidentally, if one wants to talk about SCOTUS waiting until it's more acceptable to rule on an issue, one ought to point out that they declined to rule on the validity of anti-miscegenation laws some three times between Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

  • 159. Felyx  |  February 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Thought I would throw in a ray of sunshine here…

    I did a little homework and I am inclined to agree with skemono (BTW, is that Japanese? Like Sukemono? Just curious.)

    However, I would two things, first, periodically, maybe even frequently the SCOTUS writes a brief explaination as to why they turn down a case. It usually says something to the effect of 'Case not of a Constitutional nature'.

    Olsen and Bois however have intentionally presented evidence and asked questions that would most likely interest SCOTUS. Sort of a 'Made for SCOTUS production'.

    Second, (speaking without knowing all the facts), there are other cases in the works that are making there way to SCOTUS. If there are several cases of a similar nature seeking SCOTUS ruling at the same time, or even making there way in the pipeline, then SCOTUS tends to take more interest in the subject matter at hand.

    There is absolutely no guarantee Perry is going to SCOTUS…but its odds are a bit better than comparable legal case issues.

  • 160. Felyx  |  February 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    I meant Tsukemono….sorry.

  • 161. Rose  |  February 14, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    I totally disagree with Brian on his assessment that Love Honor and Cherish is way behind on the signature gathering.

    Courage Campaign really does not want this on the ballot in 2010.

    I also do not agree with the likelihood that the proponents will win a stay through the entire process.

    Judge Walker's Decision should be out long before the election of 2010

    I believe we will win this……but we shouldn't expect that those who disagree with allowing a Same-Sex Couple the right to marry will suddenly be greeting any of us with open arms.

  • 162. Kathleen  |  February 14, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    With my math background, I just kept seeing it as "less than three" – which I realized made no sense. Then I thought maybe it was lips making a kissy shape.. you know, like you were signing off "kisses, Ronnie" It finally occurred to me to google it.

  • 163. Ronnie  |  February 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    LOL…"less then 3"….hehehe…..I like that….<3…Ronnie

  • 164. Ronnie  |  February 14, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Oh I don't care if they greet me with open arms….I just want to stay out my life, my personal business, and stop trying to control my life and what doesn't belong to them….<3…Ronnie

  • 165. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 14, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    I am like Ronnie. I do not care if they greet me wit open arms. The ones who greet me with open arms do so because thy see the real me, not the stereotypes that are so often portrayed in the MSM. Like Ronnie, all I want is to be able to run my business (I sell Stanley Home Products and Fuller Brush Products), love my husband, do the tasks I have around my house, pamper my puppies (I have a beagle and a cocker spaniel), take my mother-in-law wherever she needs to go, and in general, live my life without hiding who I am and without being afraid of being beaten to a pulp. And I definitely don't want the government in my house and especially not in my bedroom. And that is exactly where the government is until we gain full marriage equality. And that also means that the government is in the banned one's home and bedroom also. Too bad that he/she/it/they don't seem to realize that.

  • 166. Andrew  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I have one question about the views in this article. It was said here, and I hear it often, but why does everyone assume that if California allows same-sex marriage, then the rest of the nation will follow suit? It just seems like a big jump in the logic there and may build up some expectations that can eventually be let down.

  • 167. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Dear Andrew:

    I think that part of it may be that Perez v. Sharp was the first step toward Loving v. Virginia. I have often heard that "as California goes, so goes the nation."

    Love,
    Fiona

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

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!