Leave a Comment Sagesse
BREAKING: California Supreme Court rejects PJI appeal; Schwarzenegger and Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8
September 8, 2010
By Eden James
Breaking from the San Francisco Chronicle:
“The state Supreme Court refused to come to the aid of California’s embattled ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, denying a conservative group’s request to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the voter-approved measure.
The state officials’ decision not to argue in support of Proposition 8 has raised questions about whether anyone is legally qualified to defend it in court. The Pacific Justice Institute filed suit last week, arguing that the California Constitution requires Brown to defend the state’s laws.
A state appeals court dismissed the suit without a hearing, and the state’s high court denied review Wednesday without comment.
[snip]
“Attorneys general are not potted plants in the litigation process,” lawyers for Brown told the court. Although the attorney general is required to represent the state, they said, Brown also took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and is not obliged to defend a law he considers unconstitutional.
Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/08/BAE81FATL8.DTL
Filed under: Right-wing,Trial analysis
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
142 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm
But I am quite sure that instead of realizing that these judges were doing the job they were sworn to do, PJI will say that this is a case of "activist judges" conspiring to "overturn the will of the people." Isn't that what everyone who has hijacked the term "conservative" has cried when the rulings haven't gone the way they thought they should go?
2.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Can I get a Woot, Woot??
3.
Kevin S. | September 8, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Could they realistically have ruled any other way? If the law had been enacted by the regular California government and was defeated in the district court, would anybody claim they had to launch an appeal that was sure to fail?
4.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm
By the way, youngsters, the phrase "I am not a potted plant" was famously uttered many years ago by Brendan Sullivan.
5.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I KNEW there was some connection to lawyers and potted plants, I just couldn't put it together!
Thanks Ann, for being right there on the money!!!!
LOL!
6.
Kathleen | September 8, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Woot.
7.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I remember hearing some of Oliver North's testimony on the radio, then getting home and turning on the TV to watch some more — I got quite a different impression from seeing his testimony rather than just hearing it.
8.
Tony Douglass in Ca | September 8, 2010 at 1:56 pm
According to the story:
9.
Tony Douglass in Ca | September 8, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Oops, did paste the way I thought, here:
Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the court order was disappointing.
"People on the left and right should both be mourning the fact that the attorney general and the governor are reneging on their oaths of office," Dacus said, arguing that the officials have a sworn duty to defend all state laws"
10.
Greg in OZ | September 8, 2010 at 2:01 pm
woot woot! indeed!!
Greg in Oz (soon to be in San Francisco!!)
11.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 2:02 pm
@Tony: As I'm sure you know, this is more disinformation. What was at issue was whether there was a duty to appeal.
12.
Tony Douglass in Ca | September 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I know, it didn't come out right.
13.
anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 2:41 pm
So, what that boils down to is "they are sexual deviants, and we hate them, so let's not pass a hate crimes prevention act"
14.
AndrewPDX | September 8, 2010 at 2:45 pm
<cite>File this under: People who have suffered no actual harm whining to the courts and losing</cite>
Seems like that filing cabinet is gettin' pretty full these days.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
15.
AndrewPDX | September 8, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Well, or maybe "we want to push our religious interpretation into law that these icky sinners deserve what they get — all the while claiming to still want First Amendment Rights and tax-exemption for perpetrating discrimination."
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
16.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Ok, all this talk of "deviant behavior," and their endless discussions of what the gey do in their bedrooms, brought back a somewhat funny memory:
Anyone remember the book "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)?" I remember my folks had a copy, and I used to sneak it off the bookshelf when I was, say, 13 or 14. The section on homosexuality always drew me. Back then, I was just curious to learn about my feelings, and what they ment. Now, I'm struck by the similarities between EYAWKAS's antiquated and misinformed ideas, and teh H8rs.
In retrospect, however, EYAWKAS is funny in a quirky, dated sort of way. Teh H8rs definately are not
17.
V | September 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Wow, when are these right-wingers going to stop stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath? I'm glad that the courts found the way they did with this, that entire filing was nonsense in the first place. Why are they so scared of homosexuals? I don't buy any of the reasons they like to tout to the media or on blogs. :p
18.
Greg in Oz (soon to | September 8, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Oh no!
It's not a relocation – just a vacation (changed my sig to reflect that better
).
You have NO IDEA how much I wish it WAS a relocation though!!!!!
Any nice Californian boy who wants to propose to me though while I'm there would be nice – all offers considered!!!
By the time we got hitched, hopefully all these laws would be passed on it'd be legal!!!!
LOL
Greg in Oz (soon to be holidaying in San Francisco)
19.
BradK | September 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@Pacific Justice Institute:
Sisyphus called and he'd like his rock back.
p.s. About your choice of the term 'institute' — where exactly are/were you institutionalized?
20.
Josiah | September 8, 2010 at 4:25 pm
The book of Everything You Always Wanted to Know… actually did a fair bit of harm, reinforcing negative stereotypes about gay and lesbian people (in particular suggesting that they could never form stable, happy relationships). But at least one good thing did come from that book: the (very loose!) film adaptation by Woody Allen.
The movie has so many great sequences: there's one with Allen as a medieval court jester trying to get into the queen's chastity belt ("We'd better hurry up, 'cause soon it'll be the Renaissance and we'll all be painting."); another with Gene Wilder falling in love with a sheep; and another with Allen as a nervous sperm about to go out on his "first mission". Brilliant stuff!
If you haven't seen it, you must rent it immediately.
21.
draNgNon | September 8, 2010 at 4:32 pm
a marine uniform will do that.
22.
Michael | September 8, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Another slap down for the strident anti-gay activists! And just like that clown toy you hit and it comes right back up, we can be sure the unrepentant homophobes will pop right back up with more nonsense.
23.
Franck | September 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Ack, I discovered some time ago that my mother red that book as soon as she learnt I was gay. No wonder she was so adamant about hiding my "preferences" for a while.
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1175 days, as of today.
24.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
…and an FTW! to boot!
25.
Josiah | September 8, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Sagesse, have you seen the T-shirt that says "Legalize gay pot"?
26.
Josiah | September 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Yep. No harm, no foul.
Except for the NOMbies… they're pretty foul.
27.
Carpool Cookie | September 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm
They'll just say, "Well, that's only IOWA. No single STATE can define what works for the WILL of the PEOPLE…I mean, for the WELLBEING of the people. We mean…uh…something something something…"
28.
Carpool Cookie | September 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm
"Seems like that filing cabinet is gettin’ pretty full these days."
I think it's about to tip over.
29.
Carpool Cookie | September 8, 2010 at 5:17 pm
"Another slap down for the strident anti-gay activists! And just like that clown toy you hit and it comes right back up, we can be sure the unrepentant homophobes will pop right back up with more nonsense."
Well, they're all making a good living off it, so of course they'll keep milking the hate angle. How else would they get on the news, or have people listen to them, or be paid for their "opinion". (I put that in quotes because I'm not even convinced that even they believe what they say, half the time.)
None of them have any serious acheivements, and the only "experts" they get behind them are quacks.
Really, the Christianists who follow them are sheeple who're more comfortable as part of a congregation than as idividuals making choices. They're a captive audience, even though their numbers are shrinking.
30.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 8, 2010 at 5:44 pm
So, Greg, when are you going to be in SF?
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
31.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 8, 2010 at 6:01 pm
goodness, wonder if the would want the law changed if they were targets of hate crimes. I don't care why a hate crime is committed, it is a hate crime and should be tried as such. Sounds like they think it is perfectly to cause harm to others if they don't believe as they do. But then that is nothing new.
I am really learning the depth of ridicule that so many of you have known most of your lives.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
32.
Dave in ME | September 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm
YEAH!!!
33.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Yes, indeed you can.
Woot, Woot!!!
34.
Greg in Oz (soon to | September 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm
@Sheryl, Mormon Mum
From the 21st Sept till 5th October – and I am soooo looking forward to revisiting my favourite city by the bay!!!!
Would love to catch up with anyone from the 'family' here – your all such a great bunch of folk and I feel like I know you all already
Greg in Oz
35.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 8:37 pm
The Iran-Contra hearings were rather riveting news back then. If there had been an internet, there might have been an Iran-Contra Hearing Trackers site.
36.
Heather Sheridan | September 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I was 9 or 10 years old but remeber watching the hearings. Yes they were quite riveting. It seemed that was all the adults around me were talking about, and since I was good at being seen and not heard, I was privy to alot of the adult conversation, when I would be so quiet they would forget there was a child in the room. I must say that talent to blend into the woodwork led to me learning quite a bit about life before I was probably supposed to. LOL
37.
Sagesse | September 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Another fine victory for the not-potted-plants. All this could change when ‘the people’ legalize marijuana in CA…. but that’s another story
.
38.
anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Woot woot!
39.
Tom B. | September 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm
PJI, you have just earned…this.
[youtube
40.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I don’t know if someone already linked this in a prior post.
File this one under: Well, Duh!
Gay marriage causes no harm to traditional marriage, study finds
Might be worth hanging onto for when someone needs to be hit over the head with a clue-by-four.
41.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm
More linky love.
Anti-LGBT Leaders Fail in Court Challenge of Hate Crimes Law
I think these folks also went to the communications school that BS Brown and Maggie Gallagher attended.
File this under: People who have suffered no actual harm whining to the courts and losing.
42.
BK | September 8, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Haha same response from me.
But on the other hand, wouldn’t it have been even better if they *were* forced to defend it? They wouldn’t be blamed for doing it, and the case could then actually make it further in the court system. After all, aren’t we confident that the Prop 8 ruling would be upheld?
43.
Heather Sheridan | September 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Someone else who knows how to take screen shots better than me should probably also take one as I do not know if mine is saved correctly.
44.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Hopefull, yes…confident…no.
Any time you set foot in a court room an appear before a judge, it’s a crap shoot.
There’re risks at every step, and gains for stopping at every step. For my part, I’ll be happy if, whereever this ends up, the final result is a net gain.
45.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm
If by “we” you mean all of us here, then, no. I am not confident. I’d rather not risk the victory we have on appeal.
Not that it is up to us here, of course.
46.
anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Woot woot for relocation, Greg!
47.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm
You betcha!
48.
Marlene | September 8, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Reality always tends to fly in the face of the hysteria from the reicht, but then the religious reicht always lives in a delusional state anyway, so reality doesn't affect their perverted agenda!
49.
Marlene | September 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Sheryl, you should know about ridicule yourself, being a Mormon and the long history of oppression against your faith.
But just like every other time an oppressed segment of the nation assumes they've "arrived" and become part of the mainstream, they *instantly* become the oppressor, and the Mormon misogynist royalty's no exception.
50.
Marlene | September 8, 2010 at 10:21 pm
They aren't afraid of homosexuals, per se, V… they're afraid of a group oppressed for centuries suddenly becoming their *equals*!
This is typical for straight, white, fundamentalist Protestant men who are under the perverted delusion that the world revolves around them and their members. Just the thought of a LGBT person, let alone a woman, or a person of color being equals under the law threatens their perverted delusions, and causes them to claim they're being "oppressed" because they can't be bigots anymore!
51.
Tomato | September 8, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Sheryl, I am so glad you are here.
52.
Tomato | September 8, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Whoops, I hit "submit" too soon.
Sheryl, one of the reasons I'm glad you are here is because I was becoming quite prejudiced against *all* Mormons due to the actions of the powerful within the LDS.
You've opened my eyes, and made me realize that I was falling into the same hateful mindset of the very people who are vehemently against equality. (and here I thought I was such a nice person!)
Thanks to you, I've taken a deep breath, cleared my head of it's angry fog, and been able to focus on the people within the LDS who are the issue, rather than blanketing all members of the LDS with my anger.
I'm very grateful to you.
53.
Dr. Brent Zenobia | September 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Masters and Johnson were even worse. "The Sensuous Man" was another big seller of the sexual revolution, and I vividly recall a section entlted "Fags Need Good Bone Structure, But You Don't". His "point" (if you can call it that) was that beauty was 100% of the game to gay men, that as soon as their beauty faded homosexuals tended to commit suicide, and so forth. It went downhill from there. I've had a few arguments with guys over the years who internalized that crap.
54.
Dr. Brent Zenobia | September 8, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Question on California law: earlier we discussed the possibility that if the Republican candidate for governor or attorney general won in November they could try to reenter the case and rescue the H8'ers. But I seem to recall that the Governor gets the final word – would that mean that if Jerry Brown wins the race for Governor he could order a Republican attorney general not to appeal or intervene when the case reaches SCOTUS?
55.
Bolt | September 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Hi BK, while I can't speak for everyone, but when and if this case is argued on it's merits, we will win; furthermore, as Ted Boutrous of AMFER stated, "we never want to throw away a legal argument." Olson and Boies know exactly what they're doing, and their ultimate goal is success.
56.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Ok, Woot Woot for temporary relocation, Greg.
57.
Bolt | September 8, 2010 at 11:53 pm
The purpose of marriage, in California, is to channel opposite sex couples into procreating.
58.
Bolt | September 8, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I would to express my disdain towards the xtianist bigot legal groups for their failed attempt to repeal the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Preventions Act.
Fuck you!
59.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 12:02 am
Perhaps they meant to say
Same sex marriages in Iowa are stable and normal? Well, that is just because they don't KNOW how wrong they are. Once we get an amendment passed making their marriages illegal again, they can get back to being alone and miserable, as they are supposed to be and God intended it.
60.
AndrewPDX | September 9, 2010 at 12:23 am
Right… these types need to feel superior. Since they really aren't smarter, faster, better-looking, more-talented, etc, they feel the need to pull some other group down to their knees so that they can point and say "See? I'm the king od the hill!"
But I wouldn't say they fear us being equals per se… they fear that they won't have another group of people to oppress.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
61.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 12:44 am
No, it is not.
Next?
(don't you wish all marriage equality arguments were this easy?)
62.
Don in Texas | September 9, 2010 at 12:51 am
As I recall, the 9th Circuit has scheduled its hearing for December 6th, well before the next governor and the next Attorney General take office. If the Court does not re-open the case after that date, it seems to me that the newly-elected officials will be unable to enter the case.
63.
nightshayde | September 9, 2010 at 12:54 am
We've already done that — so now I'd like everyone else who wishes to marry to be able to join the party. No kidlets required!
64.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 12:55 am
Remember when Trolls were qute little things with wild hair and little gems in their tummies?
How things have changed….
65.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 12:56 am
qute = cute
Too early in the morning, no spell check :<
66.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 12:57 am
qute = cute
Too early in the morning, no spell check :<
Apparently can't hit the right reply link either. *sigh*
Please ignore the duplicate comment below.
67.
RebeccaRGB | September 9, 2010 at 1:29 am
That argument doesn't work on a federal judge, it doesn't work on an attorney general, it doesn't work on a Republican governor, and it doesn't work on me.
68.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:30 am
Except for the NOMbies… they’re pretty foul.
And you, sir, are the master of the understatement.
Thank you for making me laugh!
69.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:32 am
Speaking of Iowa, guess who has joined the battle over the Iowa judges who ended marriage discrimination in Iowa? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And she is working to defeat the people who are trying to oust the judges. And why am I not surprised that Justice O'Connor is on our side? Could it be due to what she said in Lawrence?
70.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:39 am
Maybe we should contact a data storage service to come and gather up all of that detritus!
71.
Kathleen | September 9, 2010 at 2:05 am
Richard, I suspect Justice O'Connor's objection has less to do with any particular issue than it does with her general view that judges should not be subject to political pressures. She has become a vocal supporter of reform in judicial elections ever since she left the Supreme Court.
72.
John in WeHo | September 9, 2010 at 2:16 am
As I recall, the 9th Circuit required the supporters of prop 8 to file documents supporting the notion of their having standing on the matter before the court by Sept 16th (or was it the 13th). This is 3 months before the hearing date. Is it possible that the court will rule that "they do not have standing" shortly after that due date next week, or does the court have to hear their oral arguments in Dec before ruling about the issue of standing?
73.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 2:21 am
It was the way he wore that uniform. I don't know if I can explain it well — the second I saw him, I thought "here's a man who thinks that his uniform entitles him to do any damn thing he wants, legal or not, and claim it was his patriotic duty".
74.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 2:28 am
@ Dr. Brent Zenobia: The sad part of it is, that there are still those who internalize the "beauty is everything" hogwash even today. I have seen so many who look at BZ and me with disgust when we go anywhere, simply because we are older, and not the Mr. Universe pageant winning type. But all I can do is pity them, because at some point their looks will fade, as happens with all of us, and if they have only concentrated on shallow friendships and relationships based on looks, they will be so lonely. I guess it is the gay version of what girls go through with the beauty pageants and the models that don't represent the real world.
75.
Carpool Cookie | September 9, 2010 at 2:35 am
I always thought the troll dolls and trickets were butt-ugly. They were also boring to play with, because they didn't have clothes or accesories or anything. Whenever I saw one at a friend's house when I was little, I was like, "Why do you want that thing???"
76.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 2:40 am
Gee, I thought that in California and all around the world, that marriage was a way to recognize those people who are of age, and not closely related, who desire a lifelong commitment with one person, and a way to solidify that commitment and make it even more meaningful. You mean, I have been wrong about that for the last 47 years, six months, and 1 day? Damn! guess it's time for me to enroll at Homer Simpson University and get the "facts" about it,
77.
Carpool Cookie | September 9, 2010 at 2:40 am
I did always like this image, though
http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id…
78.
Carpool Cookie | September 9, 2010 at 2:43 am
Oooops…I think I meant THIS image (above is link to main page or something… (!)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.th…
79.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 2:44 am
And you could even get the mini trolls on a plastic string necklace for a nickel out of the bubble gum machine. OOPS! I need to stop before I show my age again! LOL
80.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 2:45 am
That's okay, I have two coffee pots working overtime, and in addition to MILK, you can have the following creamers–hazelnut, French Vanilla, Vanilla Caramel, Original, and Amaretto. Want some Yom Tov challah with that? It has honey on it, and raisins in it.
81.
BrianT | September 9, 2010 at 2:47 am
I don't think that is why they are afraid. Their fear is not directly related to gay people being equal. It is much deeper and personal.
If being 'gay' is not 'bad', then they will have to confront the next logical step which is that their belief that they are is not rational. And that any actions and beliefs that they hold are bigoted and hateful.
No one -wants- to be bigotted and hateful.
For some, this goes back to their relgion. Which makes it even worse for them. No one wants to belong to a relgion that is 'bigotted'. It does not work in their minds and hearts.
They need a socially justified reason for their past actions and beliefs that targetted gay people. They need it to be OK. Else, they may just be 'bad' people.
This is why I think, that reaching out and showing Americans that gay people and families are normal and just like all other families is not enough. It will help convince many, but it doesn't get to the heart of the problem.
The heart of the problem is the next step, getting them to actually believe that being gay is not 'bad'. "Normal" and "Just like everyone else" is not the same as "Not Bad". Lots of 'normal' things that 'everyone does' are 'bad'. It just to them, for most things people do that are 'bad', they feel some guilt or remorse. But this doesn't work for being gay, if it is not a "choice" or something that can be "fixed".
For as long as being gay is 'bad', then when they do things to condemn/punish/"help" gays, it is ok. And everything they have done before is ok.
If being gay is not bad.. that means THEY were being bad.. or worse wrong.. or worse their relgion is bad or wrong! And that simply cannot be! And therefore being gay is bad! Period.
This last is, of course, not always true. And helping people find the middle path between being 'gay' is not bad and you are your religion are not inherently bad either (and finding a way to do that is not patronizing or condecending) is what is going to bring a lot more people around.
82.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 2:49 am
MILK is fine, i'm not that fancy a guy. The challah sounds wonderful. Thx!
83.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 2:52 am
I loved those things! I had a whole collection of 'em! Yeah, they were ugly, but in a cute way. I made clothes for them, built a little house for them in one of my dresser drawers –
Oops, showing my age and weirdness. Again.
84.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 2:53 am
Forgot to add (darn doorbell ringing): Coffee….the dark elixer of life! :>
85.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 2:54 am
Good for Justice O'Connor. There is definitely something wrong with our judicial election system. I've known it since Justice Bird was recalled.
86.
Leo | September 9, 2010 at 2:56 am
[IANAL] The court told them to address the issue of standing in addition to any other matters in their briefing, but didn't set any separate schedule for standing. I expect it will be argued the same way as the merits of the appeal: first in the appellants' opening brief, which is due by Sept 17, then in the appellees' brief, then in the appellants' reply brief, then in oral arguments in December, and we won't get a decision until a few months later.
87.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 3:01 am
True, Kathleen. But just like most of the women I have ever known, including the women here on P8TT, I applaud Justice O'Connor for making good use of her strength of character to work for the right thing, including reform in the way judges are seated. I have long admired her as a brilliant lady with a strong sense of fairness and the ferocity to stand up for it.
88.
fiona64 | September 9, 2010 at 3:04 am
I worked for the Dept. of Defense, in a public affairs office, at the time of those hearings. Oliver North scared the crap out of me, for just the reasons you describe.
Plus, there's no way to argue with "I can't recall." How do you prove otherwise?
Thus, one of my favorite Rolling Stone editorial cartoons of all time is burned into my memory. It was a drawing of a record on a turntable, and the label read "Good Golly, I'm Olly (Just Can't Recall)."
Love,
Fiona (who is recovering from a second dental procedure to correct complications that arose from the first one that took place yesterday)
89.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 3:25 am
I had a little town for mine. It was on different shelves in my room, and I used some of the miniature trees and other plants that you could find for aquariums to make it look more realistic. And you would have been amazed at what Final Net and Dippity-Do would let you do with their hair!
90.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 3:26 am
Exactly! After all, Is there life before coffee?
91.
Sagesse | September 9, 2010 at 3:29 am
Comprehensive summary of the Religious Right's activism for the coming election, from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Lazarus Rising: Is The Religious Right Ready To Be ‘Born Again’ In The 2010 Elections?
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2…
92.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 3:32 am
@Fiona; I remember that cartoon as well. And here is a case of Pain-A-Lay to help you with the dental work, along with some chamomile tea and glycerin swabs to prevent drying out. And a nice quilt to wrap up in that holds all our love for you.
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
Richard
93.
Bill | September 9, 2010 at 3:33 am
Dear Bolt,
You obviously need some nuts.
Please go find some.
Love,
Sanity
94.
ben | September 9, 2010 at 3:33 am
I could be misunderstanding, but if nobody has the standing to appeal, doesn't this mean the case has no chance to go to SCOTUS? I assume then the stay will be removed, couples from any state can marry in CA, and we'll have to wait for a lawsuit from a couple that marries in CA, moves to another state and sues for recognition THERE in order to get it to SCOTUS, no?
My point here is, this means that only CA will be effected. I was hoping for it to go to SCOTUS and apply to the whole country…
95.
Ronnie | September 9, 2010 at 3:40 am
WOOT….WOOT!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie
96.
Bennett | September 9, 2010 at 3:40 am
Actually we should indict them (not sure exactly what that means, I only have a law and order legal education, but you get the picture.). They are clamouring for equal protection? What for? Obviously for some hate crime they have or intend to commit.
97.
Ozymandias71 | September 9, 2010 at 3:42 am
Woot, woot!
Love,
Ozy
98.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 3:44 am
Ben, there are already couples who went to California in 2008 and are included in the 18,000 couples who married prior to the passage of Prop H8. This will still end up affecting the entire country even if it stops at the 9Th CCA, especially when couples who have been forced into the added expense of traveling out of state to get married get together and file class action lawsuits against DOMA to gain federal recognition and enforcement of the full faith and credit doctrines.
99.
Bennett | September 9, 2010 at 3:44 am
I can only picture a troll living under a bridge collecting tolls as they do in childhood stories.
100.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 3:46 am
Fiona,
I hope you are feeling loads better.
And Richard,
If ever I am sick, I am calling YOU!
101.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 3:51 am
Fiona, I hope the second dental procedure went well, and no more will be needed!
102.
Ozymandias71 | September 9, 2010 at 3:51 am
I remember reading that statement during the trial, and my jaw just hit the floor.
I would think that conservatives and liberals alike would be aghast at the very IDEA of government 'channeling' American citizens like so much cattle.
Love,
Ozy
103.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 3:52 am
No, no… Bolt is one of us. I assume his comment was meant as sarcasm, although I lost track of what he was responding to.
104.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 3:52 am
I used to wash their hair and secure them upside-down to the bathroom towel rail so that their hair would dry standing straight up, like when they were new. Freaked my brother out once who walked into the bathroom and got quite a surprise!
105.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 3:54 am
Yes, I agree. Not sure why he said that, but Bolt is no troll.
106.
Ozymandias71 | September 9, 2010 at 3:58 am
Thanks for posting this information Sagesse!
Forewarned is truly forearmed.
Love,
Ozy
107.
Bennett | September 9, 2010 at 4:01 am
Which made me think. Poorer people could lie cheat and steal to raise themselves up, but they don't, which says something about good about their character. Unlike these people who lie and oppress, not even believing themselves, just saying what best greases the wheels on the money truck.
108.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 4:03 am
That would have been the time to have a video camera handy! That would have gone quite far on America's Funniest Home Videos!
109.
Ozymandias71 | September 9, 2010 at 4:04 am
It just boggles my mind that people who claim to believe in Christ's message of love, redemption and sacrifice would turn around and scream 'You're interfering with our rights to say hateful things about Gays and Lesbians!'
I just don't get it.
Love,
Ozy
110.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 4:09 am
While it would be lovely if this went to SCOTUS and we won and there was a broad ruling that overturned all such marriage bans across the country it is probably not going to happen this time, but actually that is ok.
If the Appellants have no standing and the 9th Circuit rules that way, then we win. Judge Walker's ruling goes into effect (barring a further appeal to SCOTUS, which would likely fail for lack of standing too)and CA resumes issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
This is the win that a lot of people are hoping for right now. As you may hear around here from some of our legal expert types, a good solid win is better than a possible loss. Or a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
The job of Olson and Boies in this case is to get marriage rights for their clients. If they can best and most efficiently accomplish that by having the case end now, they are obligated to take that option. The SCOTUS trial would, at this stage, could benefit US, but possibly be detrimental to their CLIENTS, Perry et al, if they lose, which could happen.
We tend to go back and forth about this around here, but in reality, if the Prop 8 case ended tomorrow with a win, we should take it, celebrate, and look to see what the next step of the battle is past this case, not try to hang on to this one.
111.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 4:09 am
Since it's possible that the date for appeal has already passed (Sept. 3; see Arnold's letter and Jerry Brown's by implication), is it also possible that the procreationists can't even file an appeal, standing or not? Is there any possiblity at all that the 9th will see it this way and throw out any appeal the proH8ers attempt in the absence of Arnold and Jerry Brown?
(IANAPP – I Am Not a Potted Plant.)
112.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 4:14 am
Oh. Maybe I am a potted plant. That double negative stuff got in my way.
113.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
That was exactly my line of thinking, Bennett, Just what were they planning on doing that now they can't legally do?
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
114.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 4:21 am
Procreationists. I kinda like that as a generic term to describe them. I also like the fact that it's emotionally neutral. Makes better arguments than NOMbies or H8rs, etc. (Though, shamefully, I'm guilty of using them myself. Bigotry on my own part? Must reflect on this…..)
What would we call ourselves (we're so diverse, we deserve a special name too)? Equalizers?
115.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 4:31 am
Then I should never have been allowed to be married the second time. Certainly, at my age I had no plans to even to even attempt to conceive and even took precautions so that would not happen. So, if the purpose of marriage in California, is to channel opposite sex couples into procreating, why was the question "do you plan on having children?" not asked when we applied for our marriage license (or for that matter when I got married the first time). I'm sure that if a couple procreates, it is in the states best interest that the couple then care for those children. Considering the state of the education system in California, the state just might be interested in less procreation, that would mean fewer students needing fewer resources.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
116.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 4:33 am
You 2 might be showing your age, Richard and Ann, but believe me, you are both still plenty young.
Sheryl
117.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 4:37 am
Sorry if I misunderstood. I didn't think he was, but sometimes I get confused. Poe's Law strikes hard that early in the morning before the coffee.
Note to self: Self, think BEFORE you hit Submit!
118.
Carpool Cookie | September 9, 2010 at 4:37 am
Why's there no coffee in the Bible?? How'd they get anything DONE??
119.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 4:38 am
Based on "foot-in-mouth" syndrome I had above, there definately SHOULDN'T be! :>
120.
Carpool Cookie | September 9, 2010 at 4:42 am
Well, we're all "procreationists" in that none of us really want to see kids go extinct (except maybe in our own apartment buildings)….and our tax dollars go to family clinics and schools, etc, enriching the lives of children.
We must keep searching!
Though "Procreationists" sounds like "Creationists"…which I DO like.
121.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 4:46 am
Just wondering here. If the case go to SCOTUS, is there the possibility that their ruling could still only affect California as couples in California had the right to marry and that right was taken away. So, could they rule Proposition 8 unconstitutional on that issue only and not touch on same-sex marriage in general? And, that would therefore reinstate same-sex marriage in California but still not in other states? Or are they obligated to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage in general as related to the Constitution?
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
122.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 4:49 am
@Carpool Cookie: I think back then, they just ate the coffee beans without knowing exactly what it was, except that it managed to get you going.
@elliom: You mean, I'm not the only one who suffers from open mouth, insert foot to the hip syndrome before I have had my coffee? I hope I'm not. It would get rather lonesome at times.
123.
elliom | September 9, 2010 at 4:50 am
I'm all for kids (want my own someday).
I caught the creationist/procreationist thing, too. Between that and that procreation is really the only argument they think they have, I thought it kinda appropriate. Open to suggestions, however.
124.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 4:59 am
@Sheryl, it is possible they could rule narrowly, applying only to the specific circumstances of California, or they could rule broadly, and affect all the states.
125.
Leo | September 9, 2010 at 6:00 am
The deadline is to file a notice of appeal. The "procreationists" have already done that.
126.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 6:20 am
BradK,
I'm not sure they are done playing with it yet.
127.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 6:46 am
Rats. I was afraid that was the case.
128.
Roxanne | September 9, 2010 at 8:37 am
I think that a good portion of them would have to confront their own latent homosexuality. They hate themselves first, then project that hate onto others. I remember reading a scientific study and the most homo hating men were also more aroused by gay porn than those with much more accepting views.
129.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 9:22 am
Boy do I need to review my posts before submitting. My excuse, I have a cat who thinks anytime I am at the computer he thinks it is his pillow.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
130.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
Thank you Marlene and Tomato for you thoughts.
I don't think that I have experienced that ridicule because of the generation I belong to and because of where I grew up (Idaho, Nevada, Utah) and then moving to Calif. in 1972. I have been told that I will go to hell because of my religion. But hey, to each their own opinion. Because we don't worship the same way and believe the same way, and have another book as a companion and testament to the Bible, we are not considered Christians by most Christians. We also don't use the cross as a symbol. We are more about the resurrection and preparing for the next life than the crucifixion. All that said, I cannot understand a people whose history includes persecution (and that includes having a law written making it legal to exterminate them) and being forced to move west to uninhibited (except by the natives) territory to be able to practice their religion, turning around and joining forces (or even helping create) a coalition whose sole purpose is to strip rights or prevent those rights from being given to a group of people who do not choose their sexual orientation. We choose our religion, we do not choose our sexual orientation. And, I personally believe that come the judgment day, how we lived our life in respect to how we treated our fellow man is way more important than who we spent our life with.
Okay, off my soapbox.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
131.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
Thanks, Ann. So, then that possibility is another to consider. We just always talk about if it goes to SCOTUS it will be for all of the states, was wondering if the circumstances could make a difference.
As I'm not directly affected, don't know which way I would like to see it go, decided at the 9th circuit or on to SCOTUS. What I do want is for everyone (hetero or homo) to have the same rights across the board. I realize that that is still down the road.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
132.
New | September 9, 2010 at 10:40 am
I just came across this:
[youtube
133.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 10:56 am
Right about 5:45, did you hear the implication that someone should take out Judge Walker???
Also, the gross exaggeration about religious beliefs being outlawed — what a blatant scare tactic.
134.
Dee | September 9, 2010 at 1:49 pm
wow this is utterly ridiculous. blatant lies. Walker stating how these religious beliefs hurt homosexuals in no way implies we can outlaw religious beliefs. all it does is prove why they shouldnt dictate law.
how do these ppl get away with blatantly lying like that? and we all know their base doesn't educate themselves so they will take it all at face value.
135.
AndrewPDX | September 9, 2010 at 1:49 pm
<cite>Whatever you come up with, whatever you come to the table with in terms of public policy, if you come to that conclusion based on your religious beliefs, it is invalid.</cite>
DAMN STRAIGHT!
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
136.
AndrewPDX | September 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm
oops… the "public policy" part was supposed to be underlined.
You cannot make public policy based on your religious beliefs alone. There must be a rational and logical and secular reason for it.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
137.
Ed Cortes | September 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Now I'M SO confused!! P-Ass-ific Just-us Instant-toot? What am I getting wrong??
138.
Tom B. | September 9, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I have some Southern Butter Pecan creamer if you'd like
139.
fern | September 10, 2010 at 9:57 am
Yes Andrew and we are still in the month of Fructidor, liberté égalité fraternité.
140.
fern | September 10, 2010 at 10:18 am
Tony is right! I just bought a pair of Fry boots last month €199, a real man wears boots and more we had same sex marriage in 2003 and because of it I lost my religious freedom and I stopped going to church in 1961 and I wonder what can be carried in boots too now.
141.
fern | September 10, 2010 at 10:35 am
I'm not sure, but the prop8 proponents were not defendants in the case, they were witnesses and support for the defendants who refused to appeal.
Anyway I was lol reading the SFGate article.
142.
Ann S. | September 10, 2010 at 10:39 am
Not sure who you're replying to, but the Prop 8 proponents were defendant-intervenors in the case.
Leave a Comment
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.