What’s More Likely to Happen?

February 13, 2010

By Julia Rosen

Here is a question for all of you on this lovely Saturday and a poll to go with it.

What is more likely to happen in 2010: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) has a date certain for repeal (not just a moratorium) signed into law, the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, or Judge Walker rules for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger?

[polldaddy poll=2696734]

Filed under: Community/Meta

Tags: Judge Walker

Mooting Perry? Being Thankful on St. Valentine’s Day

1783110 CommentsWhat%27s+More+Likely+to+Happen%3F2010-02-13+22%3A49%3A21couragecampaign Leave a Comment

1. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 8:08 am

Gosh, it's such a shame we can't vote for more than one, but hey, I voted for Judge Walker. Love,David
2. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 8:13 am

I am not so sure the judge is going to side with us.
3. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 8:14 am

I refuse to think negatively about his ruling. Regardless of whether we win or lose, we still need to fight the fight! Love, David
4. Richard W. Fitch | February 13, 2010 at 8:15 am

Perry seems the best winner at the moment. ENDA and DADT are neck-a-neck, and I think not too far behind. There is enough new support for the repeal of DADT that I strongly expect it to be reversed by the end of the year, not just a proposed deadline, but a complete repeal.
5. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 8:21 am

The military does what it damn well pleases,

The only bipartisan cooperation in the Legislative branch is in effecting congressional pay raises,

Walker is a good judge with a deadline……

My biased mind is pretty much made up!!!
6. Marko Markov | February 13, 2010 at 8:24 am

I honestly can't imagine how any judge could rule against the plaintiffs! They made their case perfectly and the opposition's witnesses backed them – that should be enough for any thinking man, be it a gay Republican judge.

Love,
Marko
7. Mark | February 13, 2010 at 8:25 am

The question was what was likely to happen in 2010. I voted for Judge Walker. I feel the others are eventually likely, just not this year.
8. fiona64 | February 13, 2010 at 8:30 am

That was my logic as well, Mark.
9. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

a good case or not..in actuality…all the defense had to prove was that there WERE at least SOME people who did not vote out of animus.

and I think they did.

I will try to stay positive…but many of the facts that our side though good, and nice to hear, were actually irrelevant to the actual case. it was OUR burden to prove that ALL voters who voted for prop 8 did so out of animus. I am not so sure we did.
10. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 8:46 am

In the first half hour or so we have had 64 votes and 9 comments…… WOW!!! I feel like there are just so many of you out there! It feels like positive support, like a big hug of warm spiritual energy!

This poll may have been for amusement but it sure did send me a very positive message!

To all you out there that are reading and following along with us regardless of whether or not you post comments, Thank-you!!!!

With much love,
Felyx
11. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 8:49 am

This was a hard one by I close walker because it is 2010 and I feel like the others may take longer….i don't know I'm not psychic like one ostracized tracker would lead us to be…….JMHO…..lol….<3…Ronnie
12. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 8:51 am

haha…I chose…..<3…Ronnie
13. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 8:51 am

Actually, I disagree with you, dieter, this case was not just about animus, but about so much more, as we will see in the closing arguments.
Love, David
14. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 8:53 am

What? I don't understand, Ronnie…maybe it's just time of day to be confused, I dunno! LOL
15. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 8:57 am

Never mind, I think it's my time of day for confusion, since I just figured it out. Love, David
16. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 9:03 am

Dieter,

It is quite the opposite. It would only need to be proved that a significant amount of the voters had animus. And in actuality, it only needed to be proven that the campaign was run on animus and may have deceived or influenced the voters to vote out of animus.

Most of the rest of the case is to further establish that the law is not a good one and does not serve the state. Hence the testimony for suspect class, discrimination and economic impact.

Overall, the testimony portion of the trial was an overwhelming success. What happens behind the scenes is what may cause a disfavorable outcome, if any.

I remain exceptionally optimistic. Overall, this is an impressive and historical event.
17. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 9:15 am

we shall see…….we shall see.

I think the judge will rule we have not met the burden required. I hope that's not the case…but I think that it will be.

personally I think the opposite of what the poll reflects so far. I think enda will come first because that has the most support, and far fewer people fighting it. then I think dadt will be next, but not for quite some time now.
and I think walker will rule against us, and we will most likely end up trying another ballot vote in 2012 since the 2010 people have no chance of getting the signatures they need to get it on 2010.
18. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 9:20 am

dieter, the law does not depend upon popular opinion in the courtroom. It was the evidence shows. Love, David
19. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 9:23 am

LOL..I never said popularity had ANYTHING to do with the court case. I said I think ENDA will pass before walker sides with us. because I don't think he will side with us at all, and that leaves enda and dadt…which both ARE somewhat based on popularity.
not gonna argue…just expressing my thoughts. we will simply wait and see.
20. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 9:24 am

and so far it looks like 25% of people are leaning towards my thinking…lol
21. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 9:26 am

One other point I forgot to make, is during the 1960's, when many blacks were subjected to discrimination, public opinion was against them, yet they prevailed in the courts.
Love, David
22. Richard W. Fitch | February 13, 2010 at 9:27 am

Felyx, you are so right! We are a group scattered all over the US, some even from other countries. By sharing our personal stories, technical knowledge, concern and love we have become a powerful fellowship.
Valentine Hearts to all!
Richard
23. Jenny O | February 13, 2010 at 9:28 am

(without being an expert) I don't think DADT will be repealed in 2010. It has military backing which is very important, but since they're taking their time deciding 'the best way to do it' and have a year long study planned, I think it'll be next year before that happens. Same with ENDA. Congress is doing nothing fast right now and this is going to be so far from the top of their to-do list. I'm more optimistic that it'll pass in the House this year, but highly doubt it'll get anyway in the Senate unless the senators come to work one day and actually decide to, you know, work. Therefore, I voted the judge rules in favor of plaintiffs. I hope I'm right on that one, and wrong on the other two.

Love,
Jenny
24. Cammie | February 13, 2010 at 9:36 am

Um… Doesn't Judge Walker *have* to rule one way or the other in 2010? I feel like there must be time limits on that.

Sorry, I'm just a stickler for looking for any kind of skewing in polls and it seems weird to me to have one of the choices have a deadline while the others are open.
25. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 9:38 am

the question was will he decide FOR us in 2010…not if he will make any decision in 2010 which of course he must.
26. Ben | February 13, 2010 at 9:43 am

Most likely: Walker rules in favor of the plaintiffs. I would put the likelihood of that somewhere around 75-80%. Also, we know a ruling pretty much has to come before the end of the year (at the trial level, no way we're anywhere near close to the full resolution of the case by then).

Next most likely: Full repeal of DADT. I truly believe it will happen and will happen before the 2012 election cycle heats up. Dems are going to need the GayTM dollars, but are not going to want to take on this issue in an election year proper. I think it will happen, but won't happen until the 2010 elections are done. Probably late 2010-early 2011.

Least likely: ENDA. Just don't see this happening soon. Certainly not before DADT as it would be a signal to the corporate world that they cannot discriminate but it is still ok for the government to do so. In fact, I don't even see this happening before the 2012 elections.

Of all Obama's GLBT campaign promises in 2008, I think the only one that will get done in his first term is DADT repeal. Sad (with huge D majorities in both houses), but true.
27. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 9:47 am

Judge Walker in the final day of the trial announced, he wanted to take time to review the testimony and evidence in the case before hearing final arguments. I believe the time-table to review the evidence was somewhere around a month or more – he is expected to rule immediately following closing arguments.
Love, David
28. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 9:51 am

"Dems are going to need the GayTM dollars, but are not going to want to take on this issue in an election year proper. I think it will happen, but won’t happen until the 2010 elections are done. Probably late 2010-early 2011." Do you think they are get the money for GLBT community – I have vowed to not give them any money, until they show some progress on the promises they have made over the years to our community. Love, David
29. Juli | February 13, 2010 at 9:52 am

Day 2 chapter 2 is up in the Prop 8 Marriage Trial Re-enactment. It looks like they are now posting chapters without editing, as there were a few (only a few) gaffes. The actors did not break character and just kept going, when, for example, some pages from the transcript were missing, the actors just shared pages and kept going. I think it's a great choice for them to skip "fine tuning" and just get the work out there. I'm so grateful to them for the great work they're doing, so we can all see and hear this important case.
30. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 9:55 am

I agree, it has been invaluable to get a feel for what really happens, I have downloaded all the trial transcripts and supporting documentation for each side, as well. Love, David
31. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 10:05 am

I truly think that ENDA will be signed into law before w get a ruling in the Prop 8 Trial. Of course I may be wrong, and I hope I am. And I would really like to see ENDA and DADT finished this year, but of corse we all know how slowly politicians move, especially on controversial items in an election year.
32. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

I am assuming you mean a final ruling?
33. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 10:43 am

lol..maggie gallagher's bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOU
34. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 10:44 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s
35. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 10:46 am

Ooooh I got one…….lol…..enoy….<3…Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
36. K | February 13, 2010 at 10:54 am

My vote is for Judge Walker. The other two options have to pass through Congress. Those grandstanding weenies in Congress are much more concerned with their own personal reelections than the welfare of the American people they "serve." Nevertheless, I disagree that it's a good idea to withhold support for the Dems. The Republicans are far, far worse. And Mr. Obama needs our support. He's working furiously to save our world. He's my hero–I admire him SO much!
37. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 10:57 am

"Obama-nation"……hehehe……lol….<3…Ronnie
38. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 11:02 am

Thank you, Ronnie and Dieter for the videos – I liked both of them. Love, David
39. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

you're welcome this is what we are trying to get at with the picking and choosing of whats in the bible….Its just laughable…..like I said before I don't care what your religion is just don't force me to follow it…….<3…Ronnie
40. K | February 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

check out civil disobedience in NY today:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…
41. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

Yes, I like Obama, too, my comments are directed more towards the inepts bunch that represents us. BTW, I would never vote for a Repugnant. My comments were also aimed squarely at the money they always ask us to give to their campaigns.
42. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 11:12 am

haha…they called it civil disobedience….so we don't have the freedom of assembly?…..they arrested them….for chaining themselves to a public building that is paid for by their taxes……like I said the echoes of the civil rights movement and women's rights movement is repeating itself….this is just the beginning….<3…Ronnie
43. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

Yes, that does sound like Maggie, and our trolls that have recently been on here TG, TKM et al. LOL! they even get that angry when you point out their inconsistencies! ♥ ♥ ♥
44. K | February 13, 2010 at 11:17 am

Here's some good polling numbers from Andrew Sullivan yesterday:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…
45. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 11:21 am

Dave, far be it for me to correct everyone's spelling but….don't you mean Repugna-can't?!!!

Next time do a smell check! (heheheheh!!!)
46. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 11:22 am

Oh, Ronnie, this is precious! This woman does not seriously believe what she is saying, does she? Or is this a satire filmed for our side?♥ ♥ ♥ LOL!!!
47. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 11:29 am

lol….its a satire her real name is Deven Green….shes a voice actor and commdienne….she makes fun of the Religious right, homosexuality(arguments to make fun of those who are against LGBT rights), creationism, fundies, and the Repubs.

Here is the website…its really funny http://www.bettybowers.com/
48. Ben | February 13, 2010 at 11:35 am

David,
That's my point. They are going to HAVE to deliver on SOMETHING to be able to tell the LGBT community, "Look at this, see, we're supporting your causes. Now give us money." I think that example is going to be DADT. But it could help the other side to do so in an election year, which is why I think DADT happens late-2010 to early-2011.
49. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 11:35 am

from that poll that K posted:

"Two other notable nuggets. For those under 30, 65 percent favor marriage equality, a big jump from the last ABC poll, and the first time that number has exceeded 50 percent."………..ding ding…ya done!!!!!…..<3….Ronnie
50. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 11:37 am

I love this part…

"That suggests to me that this is becoming a liability for Republicans. They cannot avoid the issue since their base is so passionate about it, but in a general election, any emphasis on it will alienate a lot of Independents."

We need to constantly push the issue! We need to corner them and demand an answer. Some of us should even pose as Repugna-can't and get the R-candidates to go on record saying things like pro-CU but anti-SSM. (I personally see CU's as ONLY a stepping stone for political power.) Force them to say they are anti-homosexual or pro-gay equality on everthing but marriage.

No matter what they say, the issue is so contentious that they will lose support. Like many, I don't care much for the Dems right now but getting the R's to commit political suicide is high on my to do list!!!

(I am not one much for politics so if I sound less than brilliant on the subject it is prolly bc I am. ;`)
51. Felyx | February 13, 2010 at 11:49 am

I am a little miffed over the healthcare thing too. Even if they throw a bone like DADT (which NOW has the least effect on my life…yes, sour grapes) I still wouldn't care. As far as I am concerned, nothing was delivered. The military has to change the code of conduct which congress won't mandate. If the pentagon does change it, repealing DADT is not really a victory so much as a congressional formality. ENDA, DOMA-these will make the biggest difference to the most people!!! These are also the ones that are really under the perview of Congress.

Sorry, no money for me UNTIL these are resolved (and the pre-existing condition thing on HC reform.)
52. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Guess it didn't work Mrs. Palin…..huh?…..<3….Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAK4DQphFVg&fe…
53. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Pray for me Sarah
54. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm

This keeps up, we will have an openly gay president LONG before we have an openly Alaskan one! And he or she might even be Jewish!
55. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Please DON'T pray for me, Sarah. Everything else you have prayed for has gone to hell in a handbasket, so lease keep me off your prayer list! I want to enjoy life!
56. Ronnie | February 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Well no clearly everything she prays for "God" does the oppostie….so Pray away Sarah Honey Pray….lord GaGa pray…come on everybody pray with me…rah rah ah ah ah…rumba rum mum ma ma..Ga Ga Ooo La La….papa was a rolling stone….This is it!!!!…..mama mia!!!!!…I'm a dancing queen…There is no "us" is Jesus…………wait?!…….<3…Ronnie
57. Kathleen | February 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm

I didn't realize there was a new thread going, so I'm reposting this here:

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”
58. Kathleen | February 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm

And another insightful discussion of Sam Harris and his views: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/04/sam-h…
59. Zyle | February 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Do straight people have sexual thoughts toward people of the same gender? No.

Do ex-gay people have sexual thoughts toward people of the same gender? Yes.

Therefore, I have to conclude that they are NOT EX-gay but gay, Gay GAY still. (They're just trying to supress those desires… desires which TRUE straight people do not have to supress).
60. Kathleen | February 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Want to make it clear that posting the information about Sam Harris is not meant to be an affront to those here who have religious beliefs. I just think it's a useful observation that many people of faith seem to believe that (quoting from above site: "If we get rid of religion, we have no motivation to do the right thing."
61. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm

And Zyle, most of the ones who are honest, especially those who have gone to the "reparation therapy" quacks, will tell you that the only thing that happened there is that they were made to feel like something they are not. In short, they were made to feel like scum instead of human beings with a heart, and a soul, and a prurpose in life. That is why there are no true numbers to back up the claims of the "reparation clinics" anywhere. The only statistics thy have are their own, and their paperwork has never been made available for legitimate peer review processes. Mainly because they know they would be debunked and revealed as the charlatans they are if they were to fully disclose their tactics and schemes.
62. Kathleen | February 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm

I wasn't under the impression that the ruling would immediately follow closing arguments. I'm sure his ruling will be in the form of a written decision and, assuming he hasn't made up his mind before closing arguments, it will take a while to write the decision. I think I recall him saying the reason he wanted to be able to review all the evidence before closing arguments was so that he could ask questions he might have for either side.
63. Richard Walter (soon | February 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Kathleen, I for one was thankful for this post. It is a well-written article, and I hve no problem with it. My only problem with some who claim to have religious beliefs has to do wihthose same people misusing those relgious beliefs to hold other people down in the mire just because we are not identical to them. I am Jewish, I am gay, I am middle-aged. Do these things affect me? Yes. Are they the be all and end all of me? No, but I do not really have the time or space with any one post to elaborate completely on everything that goes into making Richard A. Walter who I am today. I thoroughly appreciate you posting this and being part of this community. And I truly hope that I get to meet everybody face to face that I have met through this site. I love you guys. You have truly elped me to grow and to bcome closer to bing the man G-d wants me to be. And for that, I will always be grateful. ♥ ♥ ♥
Now if Ican just learn how to get my picture up in place of that ghost in the corner.♥ ♥ ♥
64. Zyle | February 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm

I believe it.

The first guy I ever had sex with was the husband of the church secretary (my then-wife's best friend). He was also the prayer partner of the senior Pastor. Anyhow, they tried to cast a demon out of me. The whole time I was thinking how silly the experience was, though I did have some fear, as I was laying on the floor, that their "laying on of hands" might turn to punches (and the Pastor's did seem a bit rougher than the others).

Anyhow, I am not sure what they did to my friend, but the next time I saw him, he turned and walked the other way. It was bizarre.
65. Straight Ally #3008 | February 13, 2010 at 2:27 pm

I went with Judge Walker ruling for the plaintiffs.

But now for your enjoyment, Great Moments in DADT™

From a reader at The Daily Dish commenting on the DADT hearings:

Sessions accused Mullen of "undue command influence", a serious charge–just one step away from "illegal command influence". (At 4:00 in the Youtibe above). The accusation was so ugly, and so serious, that Gates (rightly) leapt to Mullen's defense, and smacked Sessions hard (5:20), after which Mullen looked straight at Sessions and said: "Senator Sessions, for me, this is not about 'command influence', this is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."
(5:50)

Pause it at 5:58. The look on Sessions' face is priceless.

[youtube
66. JPM | February 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Day 2, Chapter I of Prop 8 trial now available
http://marriagetrial.com/
67. Zyle | February 13, 2010 at 4:20 pm

dieter, do you think it even possible for the plaintiffs to meet the burden required?

What do you make of Walker's telling "Prop 8 proponents to disclose private communications, work product, emails and campaign strategies" (to quote from an email I got)
68. dieter | February 13, 2010 at 5:06 pm

TYPICAL:
THE PRESIDENT WANTS IT, THE MILITARY WANTS IT, THE people WANT IT…..BUT IF THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT IT THEN IT IS NOT FAIR…NOT FAIR i SAY!!!!
69. Kathleen | February 13, 2010 at 5:41 pm

Zyle, what was the email referring to? Can you put the quote in context?

There were rulings requiring the D-Is to turn over a lot of documents that the plaintiffs were asking for. But those documents helped plaintiffs, so I'm not sure why you see that as making it less likely plaintiffs will meet burden of proof.
70. Lesbians Love Boies | February 13, 2010 at 11:25 pm

This breaks my heart. These two women have been together for 23 years and have wonderful 12-year-old twin sons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ralls/huffpo-impact-premiere-a_b_461785.html” rel=”nofollow”>.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ralls/huffpo-impact-premiere-a_b_461785.html

[youtube
71. David Kimble | February 13, 2010 at 11:44 pm

Actually, Felix, I prefer "Repugnant" over your choice, simply because we have witnessed, so many times the rise of the conservative mantra – Ronald Regan, GHW Bush, and then not to be forgotten King George Bush.

Thanx, Ronnie, that was a hoot! Love, David

The poll heavily favors Judge Walker, is this because the Gay & Lesbian community is looking through rose colored gasses or could this be a reality?

The reason the polls favor Judge Walker is because our side presented an excellent case, while the PropH8 side struggled to present anything of real consequence.

David, I agree, as I have followed the trial; however DADT and ENDA are moving along as well and also needs our support. I know it is sometimes hard to put energy in everything, but each step only makes equality stronger. Thank everyone for all the hard work!

What part of this is the justice system missing…

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There may be a slight flaw in the survey in that it poses only a positive ruling, a ruling must be given this year. That being said, congress is completely stalled on almost everything and the military moves slowly. The most likely thing to occur within 2010 in a positive ruling. (Also yes, I think the voters are somewhat influenced by their hopes, but not enough to totally throw reason to the wind.)

Thanks, Rudy! I agree, it does seem we have a lot on our plate at this juncture in history. I firmly believe all will eventually come to bear fruit and we need to remain steadfast in our support of all causes that affect our community. I have written numerous e-mails and letters to Congress urging action on DADT and ENDA. Our voice, as one carries little impact, but together our voice will echo throughout history with a resounding clamor. Just as Dr. King was a key and instrumental in bringing awareness and real change to laws that patently show discrimination to the black community. A while back, I made the comment that I miss Harvey Milk and the work he did bring about awareness to our community and to the blatant and very discriminatory laws that affect our community. Someone suggeted that I could become that voice. I have considered this proposal at some length I would be elated to be a voice for our community. When the opposition attempts to drown our voices in the waters of bigotry and hatred, we must stand-up and not deny them their voices. BIgotry knows only hate and the two cannot exist without each other. Love, David

oops, line should be; "and not deny them their voices, but we need to speak with a single voice."

I'm guessing that we will resume our practice of marriage equality, in California, by March 21st. This will take effect shortly after Walker hands down his ruling.

I don't see that happening, since undoubtedly NOM will get a "stay" from a higher court…I don't know, but I dont' put much past them. Love, David

I voted for the Walker ruling because he must rule this year, and is likely to rule for Perry et al at least in part.

The other two options require Democratic action.
(hold for laughter…)

My family was in a similar situation.

Unfortunately, we had to all be exiled to a Third country that has received us with open arms.

Our children have not been back to the US, and neither of us are able to contribute to our community.

HOWEVER – the US Goverment continues to TAX my family.
I pay every April 15th our due taxes.

Is this fair ?
Is this just ?

or..just plain wrong and cruel ?

Please, write the White House and your Senator – and ask them to support the United American Family Act (UAFA) !

Yes, I heard that too, I will need to review the trial transcripts for more clarity on what he said.
Love, David

Alexandre, I am sorry, I don't understand "HOWEVER – the US Goverment continues to TAX my family.
I pay every April 15th our due taxes." The money you earn outside of the US should not be taxable, unless you work for certain US companies and then, yes, the taxes have to be paid. I just read the UAFA, thanks for sharing with us about the necessity of this bill! I concur. Perhaps, I am confused, but I didn't see any provision in the bill that would change the tax situation for you and your family. Do you have a specific reference? Love, David

I was wondering if the "rulings requiring the D-Is to turn over a lot of documents" WOULD in fact help the plaintiffs meet the burden of proof (something which dieter doubts the plaintiffs will be abble to do).

Is there anything about those documents (and what would it be) that might, in fact, cause the judge to rule that the burden of proof required had been met. Perhaps dieter just does not feel it would be compelling enough.

If voters vote in favor of ANYTHING which is ruled unconstitutional (e.g. to close down all the mosques in a state), it would not matter if there was any animus or not in the election. If an unconstitutional measure is passed, it must be overturned.

I voted for Judge Walker because the timeframe is 2010. The ruling will definitely come within the year… it may not be the ultimate outcome, but it will happen. And I believe the weight of evidence support the overturning of Prop 8. Not sure what reasoning he will use to get there, and that will determine what the appeal challenges will be going forward, but the first round will go to the plaintiffs.

There's an elephant in the room with respect to DADT, and its name is DOMA. Simple repeal may or may not occur within the year, but simple repeal would still withhold much of the status and support for military families and veterans that heterosexual soldiers are (quite rightly) entitled to. This will get a lot messier and a lot meaner before it gets better. There was a glimpse of a similar issue in health care reform, and that has to do with immigration. The solution to health care for undocumented immigrants is a path to citizenship. There are no words you could put into health care reform that would deal with immigrants' health care issues… they are all bound up in immigration reform.

There are a lot of ways of committing political suicide, but pushing a whole bunch of LGBT initiatives at the same time is nuts. The only sane strategy is to do them sequentially, moving from most doable (least controversial) (hate crimes) to least doable (most controversial) (anything to do with marriage). DADT has a lot of public support, and a lot of visibility. For that reason only, I put ENDA last.

I respectfully disagree. Do it all, at once, "Shock Doctrine" style, before the campaign heats up. By election day we'll have married service members on active duty. If any candidates then want to campaign against our men and women in uniform and open themselves to the "Why do you hate our troops" meme, let 'em. It's a known loser.

89. Lesbians Love Boies | February 14, 2010 at 3:39 am

Dick Cheney Endorses Repeal of DADT – really!

[youtube
90. David Kimble | February 14, 2010 at 3:43 am

Thanx, I saw the show this morning on ABC-7 LA.
Love, David

Zyle, PropH8 rewrote the California Constitution to deny SSM, so your statement is true only to a degree.
"If an unconstitutional measure is passed, it must be overturned." Love, David

I am not sure about that. I think it will be done either this year before November either never during Obama's term.

In November, the congress is going to go back to a Republican majority and they'll do anything they can to prevent that from happening. Either Obama grows some balls and decides to do it, either it won't get done.

The year-long study is just a way of stalling the thing to better bury it.

There's more to amimus than the voters, Dieter. The history of Prop 8 being on the ballot at all just drips with animus.

Before Prop 8, there was Prop 22 (The "Knight Initiative, passed at ballot in 2000), which was the exact same language as 8. It was just that 22 was a law, not an amendment, and was thus subject to judicial review.

Since then, the State Legislature has voted to legalize same-sex marriage twice, and was vetoed by the Governor on the grounds that he can't sign a law that conflicts with another law passed at ballot (true).

The CASC then ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional, freeing up the Legislature and Governor to do their jobs. And what did Yes-on-8/PM.com do? They stuck a "Now an Amendment!" sticker on that same Prop 22, and resubmitted it onto the ballot as Prop 8.

They did not change a word. They made no attempt to reconcile their legislation with the Court ruling. They did not attempt to more narrowly tailor it to address their stated concerns. They didn't even pull it from the ballot for review after the CASC's "suspect class" ruling.

Yes-on-8 just went and usurped the power of the Legislature, and flipped the Judicial branch the bird with the amendment packaging. Now that is animus!

On top of it, they are now acting as the Executive branch in defending this thing, despite all three branches of California government having stated on the record that they believe it unconstitutional and indefensible.

Having been a Californian my entire adult life, I don't recall anyone electing Ron Prentice or this Pugno guy to any office, and they're not even from here. Why are they acting as all three branches of our government?

The animus toward GLBT people almost pales compared to their animus toward separation of powers, judicial review, and our very system of checks-and-balances. These Yes-on-8 freaks actually think the whole government is supposed to be an enforcement arm of their self-appointed dictatorship.

The Court has to squash them to maintain the legitimacy of its own government's power, all talk of rights and equality aside. If they don't, we have much bigger problems.

Staislas, what is your native language if I might ask?

In English construction Either/either is actually either/or. The second either becomes 'or'. There is a negative equivalent Neither with the accompaning 'nor'.

Example: Either Obama does it, 'OR' it won't get done.

If not for the name and the rare unusual error I would not have ever picked up on your non-native status (if indeed you are not native). I am guessing you are of slavic or greek origen perhaps? Either way, your written English is excellent and practically flawless!

"Hope will never be silent" — Harvey Milk

Seems like an applicable quote to go with your post

Love,
Andrew

Just as a side-note from another American expat… David, The United States is the only country in the entire world that double taxes their expat citizens. I currently live abroad and work for a company that doesn't even do business in/with the United States and I too have to file and pay my federal income tax, on top of what I already pay locally.

The US tax laws are so retarded, that if you denounce your US citizenship… they will STILL tax you.

You are correct David. The only way we will have marriage soon in California is if Judge Walker rules in our favor, and then the 9th circuit agrees, and then the supreme court then refuses to take the case. since this is a near impossible scenario, then gay marriages will not resume until after the supreme court hears the case, and then ONLY if they MIRACULOUSLY change the entire history of their voting pattern and side with us.
I am not being a pessimist I am being a realist. People keep attacking me and acting like I am stupid, and telling me that I am wrong because clearly our side is right. Well apparently those saying these things to me have forgotten all of history. do I think our side is right?..YES. Do I think the courts should side with us?.YES. Do I think that magically the supreme court will change their minds all of a sudden?.NO.

people can surmise all they want abuot who is right and who is wrong. The bottom line is that our fate lies in the hands of 5 judges who have ALWAYS sided against us, and what is right, and what is good for the country. In case you don't believe me, you may want to review the decision the court just made essentially handing our country over to Chevron, and the churches, and republicans. Democracy no longer exists. and only big businesses have any say anymore.

Dear Sen McCain:

Dick Cheney says it's OK to repeal DADT.
Dick. Cheney. He's OK with it. Dick Cheney.

Love,

SA3K8

Dick Cheney actually supports ss marriage, though he doesn't think it should be a federal question, instead regulated by the states, as marriage has always been (per him). I'm not aware of his having made a public statement about DOMA. And of course, the problem with DOMA is that it circumvents the Constitutional requirement of "faith and full credit" to other states' laws.

I agree Felyx, they have pandered to our vote outside of the spotlight, using e-mails and before that a grassroots campaign targeted at our community. I am also more than a little miffed over the healthcare thing. The Repugnants (GOP) have continued to misconstrue the facts and to incite fear in the people of America about NHC (National Healthcare) – they continue to lie about other countries, which have NHC. Michael Moore did an excellent documentary dispelling many of the myths created by the Repugnants, who continue to balk at the notion that other countries have a plan that works much better than in the US. In the documentary, Michael Moore took several 9/11 survivors and anyone else he could get to come wtih him to Cuba, where the people recieved the medical attention they deserved.

Aww – I posted that one the first or second day of the trial A great vid~

For all who chose Door #3: I just want to point out that Judge Walker is bound by precedent. At the district court level, his hands are largely tied. I'm not saying that he is bound by precedent to reject the plaintiffs claims in this case–I'm not sure what all the precedents are, which can be distinguished (i.e., argued away), etc.
I'm writing this just because I saw on a different site an article saying that Judge Walker will be a traitor to gay people everywhere, and to the Constitution as well, if he doesn't rule in the plaintiffs' favor. Things are simply not that clear cut. If Judge Walker rules against us, he shouldn't be ostracized–he'll probably be hoping the decision is reversed on appeal just as much as the rest of us. If precedent is against us, it will have to be overturned at the appellate level, not the trial court level.

here we go again..back to the rear of the line:

Don’t ask when: Repeal of gay ban won’t be soon
AP
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, Pentagon leaders and even former Vice President Dick Cheney think it’s time to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. But a repeal is probably years away.

The two Defense Department officials appointed to lead a yearlong internal assessment — Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s chief legal counsel — met for the first time Feb. 9.

As that study gets under way, officials were expected by mid-March to suggest ways to relax enforcement of the law. Of particular interest is minimizing cases of “third-party outings,” where a service member is kicked out after being reported by others to be gay.

The protracted timeline is about more than giving military leaders time to assess the impact on troops and put new rules in place. The MULTIYEAR process also is a strategic way of getting troops used to the idea before they have to accept change. Politically, the timeline puts off congressional debate over lifting the ban until after elections this fall.

I keep trying to say that in here, but I get attacked, and treated like I am stupid, because people in here want to win the case so bad they fail to hear my reasoning.
I don't think Walker will side with us…….regardless of how well they think we did. I do not think our side overcame the burden they needed to.
and it doesn't help that the other side is calling into play walkers orientation. I know it shouldn't matter…but it will..watch and see..

Stone,

I would agree the article you read sounds more like opinion than actual knowledge. Walker is a professional who has a procedure to go through…clearly he is not going to make a decision based solely on personal opinion…this is not "Idiocracy"! (Not yet anyway! LOL)

Dieter,
Hate that you feel attacked….that kinda thing is reserved for K Moore et al. I don't think you are stupid and I listen to your reasoning.
I personally, think our team did meet the burden, at least the one regarding animus. The campaign was clear in its meaning and there is no doubt that it had a profound influence on voters…especially considering how narrow the vote was. This is enough to repeal P8.

As for burden to prove suspect class, that is a different question which also in its own right could overturn P8 regardless of the first question. It is the legal question we are hoping on because it then will affect everyone across the country. As to whether we met this burden…it is tough to call and even Walker probably still doesn't know.

As for crying foul over his being gay? Only rednecks and religious radicals are swayed by that argument. No one in the legal system is ever going to question that. He was approved as a judge before hand and was randomly selected. Anyone who is still crying foul is really just crying for all anyone (important) really cares.

I hope this puts your mind a little more at ease. Certainly nothing is guaranteed but the odds are not anywhere near impossible. Olsen and Boies are professionals….they are not getting paid what they normally would, they are doing much of this, I think, because they believe in it, for personal glory and because they must really feel that they can win this one. And winning this one would be like winning gold at the olympics! I feel encouraged. I hope I have given you some logically rational and not just rose tinted hype.

Love,
Felyx

I'm a French native speaker, currently living in France (well, semi-English native speaker let's say, so once in a while I make a mistake. As you just witnessed )

You're absolutely right of course about that either/or thing. Thanks for calling me on it, I will pay attention to it next time.

Francais!!! Mais bien sur! (Il se rappe la tete sur la table!)
Merci monsieur, merci beaucoup. Felyx

No I think them calling into play his orientation is going to flat out prove discrimination…..their goose is cooked….they should have just kept their mouths shut…but we all know bigots are not capable of doing that but when faced with the consequence they can't defend themselves (case in point their lawyers…horrible…and their witnesses…enough said)…<3…Ronnie

I thought their witnesses were great….except for those that DIDN'T testify for us because of the supposed camera thing. LOLOLOL

Well yeah their witnesses were great in making the case for our side…and that "they can't handle consequences" thing mainly applies to those who ran away like the shitzus they are……hehehe….<3…Ronnie

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!