Leave a Comment Johan
BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow
November 16, 2011
By Adam Bink
The California Supreme Court just announced it will issue its opinion tomorrow, November 17th at 10 AM PST regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. From the court’s release:
The court granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address the following question: “Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”
Opinion(s) in the above case(s) will be filed on:
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
For those not familiar with the timeline of the case, this is not a binding decision on the case. That rests with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Some background: in December of last year, the 9th Circuit heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling, which struck down Prop 8. The court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and arguments on whether the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com, et al) even have standing to represent the state of California in the case as defendant when Gov. Brown and Attorney General Harris decline to do so. For the live-blogging of those arguments, click here.
Rather than immediately rule on those arguments, the 9th Circuit decided to kick the ball over to the California Supreme Court on the issue of standing, asking an important question: do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decline to defend the initiative? If ultimately not, then Prop 8 goes without a defendant, our side (the plaintiffs) wins and Prop 8 ends.
The California Supreme Court accepted the question, heard arguments (for live-blogging of those arguments at the hearing, click here), and tomorrow will issue its opinion. From there, the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel which heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision and kicked the ball over to the California Supreme Court will read the opinion and then issue its own ruling some time after, which actually functions as a decision in the case. It’s important to note that tomorrow’s opinion, while influential, is more of a “hey 9th Circuit, here’s what we think about your question.” It’s not a binding decision per se. That said, many legal observers believe that the 9th Circuit will follow what the California Supreme Court decides on standing. The issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional is another question.
From there, the ruling can be appealed to the full 9th Circuit en banc, and of course the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which may or may not take up the case.
We’ll have coverage and reaction to the opinion tomorrow here at Prop8TrialTracker.com.
Filed under: Prop 8 trial
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
84 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Alan_Eckert | November 16, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Great news! I'm working from home, so I can easily take a break to read whatever is released =)
2.
mike | November 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm
It's 2012! Its been 4 years! What the hell are they doing? They are JUST NOW deciding whether or not proponents can defend Prop8? Absolutely ridiculous.
3.
Mackenzie | November 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Do we have any idea how long it might take the 9th circuit to issue its ruling as a result of this?
4.
Ann S. | November 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Can't wait!
5.
be4marriage | November 16, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I suspect that it depends a bit on what the CASC actually says.
6.
Jenny | November 16, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Glad we're finally moving forward on this case. Wish I wasn't going to be working without internet access all day :/ Hopefully the 9th Circuit will act quickly once this is out.
7.
Ronnie | November 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Waits patiently for tomorrow…..subscribing & sharing…. Last night's Glee was awesome. The Troubletones won the mash-off against the New Directions hands down & that scene ended with one of the best slaps I have seen in a long time. Here is the promo video for last night's episode of the Troubletones mash-up of Adele's "Someone Like You" & "Rumor Has It"…….. <3…Ronnie:
[youtube qb7zjKkLCoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb7zjKkLCoQ youtube]
8.
AnonyGrl | November 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Sadly, these things can drag on for many years on appeals. It is wildly frustrating, and hurtful, but that is how the court system works.
9.
AnonyGrl | November 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm
I'm with you.
10.
Adam Bink | November 16, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Adele is my Spotify music today.
11.
Mighty Acorn | November 16, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Oh boy, it's that nervous-because-this-is-all-so-historic-and-big-and-stuff feeling. Fingers crossed.
12.
Bob | November 16, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Yes me too,,, waiting and watching from Canada,,,,,, let's have the standing issue resolved!!!!!!!
13.
deg farrelly | November 16, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I think you have a typo: You wrote:
do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decide to do so?
Don't you mean to say
do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decide NOT to do so?
14.
Steve | November 16, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Easily one of the best numbers in the series
15.
Lymis | November 16, 2011 at 1:54 pm
No, they are not deciding whether they "can defend Prop 8" – that decision was made when they were granted Defendant-Intervenor status. This is a slightly different question, whether they have the standing to appeal the decision on their own now that the state of California has officially dropped the case.
Different question requires different analysis.
16.
wde | November 16, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Why isn't DOMA going after Kim kardashians crap marriage?
17.
Lymis | November 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I think it will be surprisingly fast (given the glacial rate of court proceedings). They already heard all the legal arguments for the case, so there won't be a further delay because waiting for new court arguments. I hope we'll get it in just a few months.
Of course, then there are further appeals. We're at least a few years from a US Supreme Court decision, at best.
18.
be4marriage | November 16, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I just got an urgent message from Brian Brown saying that the Respect for Marriage Act may be attached to the defense authorization bill. Any truth to this?
19.
Adam Bink | November 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Yes. Fixed. Thanks.
20.
Adam Bink | November 16, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Fascinating. I'd love to see the e-mail if you wouldn't mind forwarding it to me. Adam at couragecampaign dot org.
21.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | November 16, 2011 at 2:24 pm
In the meantime, NOM blasted an email saying that the Respect for Marriage Act is going to be attached to the Defense Authorization Bill. Why does everything gay-related always goes through that bill (DADT passage, DADT repeal)? Assuming that it's true (one can't trust NOM).
22.
Brian | November 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Having watched the oral argument, I'd be shocked by anything other than a 7-O decision finding that the proponents do have standing. But I'm still confident we'll win on the merits. So — bring it on!
23.
Susan Russell | November 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Great clarifying review. Thanks so much.
24.
James A. Tuttle | November 16, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I also believe that the CASC will find proponents have standing, which is fine by me. I have a question for you smarties out there. If the CASC says proponents have standing the issue rests with the 9th Circuit, they will rule on standing as well, if standing is granted when do we finally get to hear the ruling on the merits of the Walker Prop 8 trial???
25.
Steve | November 16, 2011 at 2:39 pm
DADT is military related, so it makes sense
But since the NDAA is a must-pass bill, it's common to attach other things to it in the hope that it gets through will little fuss. There is all kinds of off-topic things and pork in it. Doing DOMA repeal that will seems unrealistic though. The issue is too high-profile
26.
John | November 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm
But the healthcare law is before the Supreme Court this year?
27.
be4marriage | November 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I don't think the 9th Circuit will find federal standing even if the CASC says there is state standing.
28.
John | November 16, 2011 at 2:45 pm
(AnonyGrl, that's not meant to be a criticism of your point, which is true. Just frustration with the process.)
29.
John | November 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm
http://lezgetreal.com/2011/11/brian-brown-upset-t…
30.
be4marriage | November 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm
I'd expect 7-1 with the new guy issuing a stinging rebuke to the CASC. There is simply nothing in our state constitution giving the proponents standing to appeal in federal courts. The only thing they can point to is the language stating that the AG doesn't have a veto (which the AG didn't veto, she just refused to defend). Further, if the people want to give proponents standing, all they have to do is amend the constitution to do it. We've all seen that it's not that difficult.
31. 54% of Iowans Vote to Ous&hellip | November 16, 2011 at 2:52 pm
[...] [...]
32.
be4marriage | November 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
IDK, I'd think this might give some moderate Republicans (and Democrats) a nice easy out. They can always say it was the dirty Liberal Democrats that snuck it in and they really didn't have a choice. Frankly, it might be better for them to repeal it with this piece of legislation than to have the courts continue to rule against them and codify that gays and lesbians are a suspect class.
33.
MJFargo | November 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm
The merits are, of course, the issue. However, the proponents' standing at Federal Appellate Court as well as under the California Constitution are both outside both the California Supreme Court's reach. We can all wish they had standing so we could at least proceed. But under the current rules of Federal Court and the CA Constitution no one can just step up to the bench and represent The People of California. At Federal Court they have to show they are directly damaged by Judge Walker's ruling: The proponent have presented nothing convincing. And the State Contitution doesn't address this particular issue. The CASC's opinion really doesn't count for anything here.
34.
Larry | November 16, 2011 at 3:02 pm
They could do that, but I don't think the 9th circuit will. That means the 9th circuit would vote against federal standing regardless of the CASC's decision. And if that's the case, then why would they have certified the question in the first place, especially after the 9th circuit expedited the appeals process? It would be somewhat disrespectful to ask the CASC a question and then basically ignore the response.
My prediction: CASC says that California has always been generous with standing, so the initiative sponsors would have standing to defend/appeal the issue in a state court. (similar to Strauss v Horton where the same initiative sponsors were allowed to intervene after the AG refused to defend Prop 8).
35.
Str8Grandmother | November 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Well as long as we are making bets, I bet the California Supreme Court will give standing to the Defendant Intervinors and the 9th Circuit will grant standing also. I also bet that this case will get an en Banc Hearing in the merits before it is sent to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sadly I think this case has a long way to go yet.
36.
DaveP | November 16, 2011 at 3:09 pm
While I do think this number was nice, I'm a little let down that Ronnie didn't use today's news to take the opportunity to embed a video of Annie singing "Tomorrow". ; )
37.
WWLL | November 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Given what I've read about the US Supreme Court's dim view of proponent standing, I don't see why the 9th Circuit would force the issue. To me, it seems that they are being thorough in appeasing opponents so that the situation is settled, and not out of disrespect for the CA Supremes.
38.
Ronnie | November 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm
LOL…. ; ) …Ronnie
39.
Steven | November 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm
California Supreme Court IS NOT going to "give standing" to DI OF Prop 8, that's 9th Circuit's decision. They are going to issue their opinion on whether or not if they have a right to appeal on state's behalf in federal court. Yes, in the past cases they were generous it was not based on state's law nor constitution…….
40.
Steven | November 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm
They are going to answer this question:
Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”
41.
Steven | November 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm
if it reaches USSC on full appeal it will be finished by June 2013 not few years from now…….
42.
Carpool Cookie | November 16, 2011 at 4:04 pm
" if that's the case, then why would they have certified the question in the first place, especially after the 9th circuit expedited the appeals process? It would be somewhat disrespectful to ask the CASC a question and then basically ignore the response."
Because this is a high profile case and they realize the Nations' eyes are on these decisions, so it has to be on the record as thoroughly as possible.
They want to be able to say in the opinion/ruling, "We solicited opinion from the California Supreme Court, and this is why we do / do not agree with them, and vote thus…"
43.
MJFargo | November 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Why would the 9th wander into these waters (standing) when they were called out so specifically by SCOTUS in the Arizona case? They joked about it during the hearing, but what in all of this would persuade SCOTUS to given the Proponents standing even if the 9th grants it?
44.
Carpool Cookie | November 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Oh…who knows how legal minds think. It is a mystery.
The reason they have different judges decide a ruling together is because its known that different minds interpret law differently. So they go for a majority vote.
It's always hard to pinpoint in advance exactly which part of an argument will sway a judge, specifically.
45.
Rob in CA | November 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I was in the courtroom when the CA Supremes heard arguments, (Having been one of the lucky 15 members of the public to get a ticket), and while they seemed very sympathetic toward allowing intervention by initiative proponents to represent the people of the state of California there were some very good legal arguments, separation of powers not being the least of them, that taking such a blanket position could lead to all sorts of mischief. This being the state of California however, god knows what they will come up with.
46.
Steven | November 16, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I believe that 9th Circuit wants to cover all basis before handing down their final decision and they don't want to be overturned by USSC If there is no standing USSC will be more declined not to take this case. JMO
47.
John | November 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm
6-1, you probably mean
48.
MJFargo | November 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Agreed. And this feels a little like "ax grinding" by the 9th, that is, waving before SCOTUS an opinion by the CASC that proponents should have standing on appeal. I personally think this case is a good example of why letting any Tom, Dick or Harry intervene, given the performance of the Proponents and the arguments they've presented…but that's just me..
49.
MJFargo | November 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Agreed. I feel like there's some "ax grinding" going on with the 9th around the standing issue, and they'd like to have an opinion by the CASC to wave around to SCOTUS. However, I feel like this case is a grand example for not letting any Joe intervene, given the level of arguments the Intervenors have offered. But maybe that's just me
.
50.
maggie4noh8 | November 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm
WAY OFF TOPIC – but does anyone know where you can catch the republican debate tomorrow?
51.
Guest | November 16, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Because in the Arizona case they granted standing, and SCOTUS chastised them for doing so. Given that history it seems reasonable that they might want to inquire into the status of state law on that issue before doing so again.
52.
MightyAcorn | November 16, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Oh wait, it's just on the tip of my tongue….hold on….um…there were three places you could watch it, but…uuuuhhhhh…….
53.
B Z | November 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm
In their order certifying the question (p.2), the 9th Circuit wrote "we agree to accept and follow the Court's decision". I doubt that that's legally binding, but it does signal their clear intent.
54.
Straight Dave | November 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I think the 9th really wanted to address the merits, but couldn't see their way clear for federal standing, especially after Judges Hawkins and Reinhart had their private joke right in the middle of the hearing about how they got slapped down by SCOTUS in the Arizona case. Their only chance was for CASC to bail them out and provide some kind of arguable basis for standing. But I don't see that happening. CASC might well find standing in the state context, but no plausible CA standing opinion can cover the gaping hole of "particularized harm" to the proponents that the feds require.
Even if the 9th tries to run with it because they'd love to write a merits opinion, SCOTUS will throw it out again on standing. If the 9th is wise enough to not try that this time around, I predict SCOTUS will decline to take the case. The latter should happen a hell of a lot quicker than waiting to actually hear the case.
55.
AnonyGrl | November 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I hear you and am just as frustrated.
56. Balloon Juice » Big&hellip | November 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm
[...] CA Supreme Court will announce tomorrow morning at ten whether the legal team defending Prop 8 has standing to defend it in court. Technically (and [...]
57.
Kevin | November 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I agree. I don't think there is any good reason for the 9th to sit on this for any extended length of time.
58.
Kevin | November 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm
And by he you mean she.
59.
Kevin | November 16, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I completely agree.
60.
Kevin | November 16, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Nothing will likely happen between tomorrow and the 9th's opinion, which will incorporate both standing and the merits (if the merits are to be reached).
61.
grod | November 16, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Or to place such a clause in the text of the ballot initiative. This apparently has been done in CA before, and acknowledged by the court as a difference that made a difference. This fact leads me to believe that the Supremes with find that as it was not written into the ballot initiative, mindful that the AG did not intervene on appeal, the proponents do not have standing.
62.
bob | November 16, 2011 at 8:19 pm
The CSC better say they don't have standing. Who knows what can 'o worms will be opened if they say backers have standing in court??
63.
Jacob | November 16, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I don't think the US Supreme Court particularly wants to hear this case. They'd probably be happy to be rid of it for a while while a consensus builds in the states. That said, in my totally unrealistic imagination, I look forward to them taking it as some sign that Kennedy wants to leave this as his legacy.
Just hurry the hell up already. The older generation deserves better.
64.
Jacob | November 16, 2011 at 10:12 pm
The oral arguments made the outcome seem pretty clear. Don't be too disappointed! This is just a time-wasting sideshow.
65.
Elliott | November 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Finally some movement! As they say in Old Shanghai, even babies don't get younger by waiting.
66.
Bill S. | November 17, 2011 at 12:15 am
The (federal) Supreme Court is very conservative on standing, and I feel that they would not accept a ruling saying the proponents have standing. It would definitely complicate the prior consensus regarding who does and does not have the ability to appeal.
That being said, do you think it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule that they do have standing, but also say that this decision on standing does not set precedent, purely so that they may reach the merits on this case? This is a high-profile issue that is not going anywhere anytime soon, and I would think that the Court would want to resolve it as clearly and as expeditiously as possible.
67.
Bill S. | November 17, 2011 at 12:16 am
Also, do you think it is a good idea for this case to reach the Supreme Court before the DOMA cases? I'm worried, because I really think the DOMA cases is more obviously unconstitutional and would make for a better easing in to a full marriage-equality decision.
68.
Lynn E | November 17, 2011 at 2:50 am
The decision in the Arizona case specifically chastized the 9th Circuit for failing to seek this advice from the State Court before granting standing. "Participants in the federal litigation, proceeding without benefit of the views of the Arizona Supreme Court, expressed diverse opinions on the meaning of the amendment." (from Justice Ginsburg's opinion in the Arizona case). The 9th Circuit is making sure all the "I"s are dotted and all the "T"s are crossed. I have a mixed feeling about standing, since without an appeal the case will have no binding precedent in other jurisdictions.
69.
Str8Grandmother | November 17, 2011 at 3:14 am
Since this topic has attracted so many excellent commentors I would like to throw something out there. One day when my daughter was back home from college she corrected me when I said, "autistic children." She told me that the proper way to say that is "children with autism" she explained that you always want to put the person first and the disease second. If you do it in reverse, the reader or listener focuses on the disease and not the children. Yes "children with autism" does sound a lot better, more child centered than "autistic children" doesn't it?
Now I am NOT saying that being a sexual minority is a disease, it ISN'T! Couldn't we more frequently write "people who are gay" rather than "gay people?" If we write "people who are gay" we more accurately put the focus on the fact that these are first and foremost people, and their gayness is second to they're being a person first. I realize it takes more time to write out the extra words but I think if done consistently it changes the tone more positively.
The other thing I would like to mention is that I have started using the words "sexual minorities" more and more. I read those words in a Jones & Yarhouse study and I really like the description. Instead of saying GLBT or LGBT all the time we could simply say "sexual minorities." I think this term has a good scientific meaning and also a legal one.
In a similar vein using the word DISCRIMINATION instead of EQUALITY. I realize that it takes much longer to type out the word DISCRIMINATION but IMHO I think is a better word.
"Sexual Minorities are being Discriminated against"
vs.
"Gay people do not have Equality"
I offer it for your consideration. I think I might copy and paste this comment into other websites so don't be surprised to see it in other places.
70.
Sam_Handwich | November 17, 2011 at 4:19 am
November 19, 2011 Thanksgiving Family Forum
5pm ET – Video streamed on CitizenLink.com or listen on the Bott Radio Network
Maybe c-span will cover it too?
71.
MJFargo | November 17, 2011 at 6:46 am
OOOOoooh, Well, there ya go. Thanks.
72.
MJFargo | November 17, 2011 at 6:48 am
(Sure feels like it.)
73.
DaveP | November 17, 2011 at 6:50 am
A tiny update – it's 6:45 AM here in California and the morning news shows are running short 'teasers' about the ruling that will happen at 10 AM later this morning. Nice to see the mainstream news is giving this visibility.
74.
MJFargo | November 17, 2011 at 6:59 am
Regarding your first point: I think the problem is the disease model. I have a bone marrow disorder that can pop up in the population irregardless of sex, race, national origin, etc. It is not who I am. I also am Caucasian. It is immutable. I cannot "become" a different race tomorrow.. In sexual orientation, the current opinion is that it is immutable and cannot be changed. Therefore, I am Caucasian, I am gay, I am a person with a bone marrow disorder.
Equality is what we're striving for. Discrimination is an act directed specifically at us…like Prop 8.
75. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 17, 2011 at 7:15 am
[...] You can read more about how we got to this point in the case and why today’s opinion is important in yesterday’s preview post. [...]
76.
AnonyGrl | November 17, 2011 at 7:28 am
As far as obvious unconstitutionality, I think both cases have equal strength. And since they attack the problem from different directions, it would be ideal for both to get there.
As to which one should go first, tough to say. I think DOMA would be a bigger help in winning Prop 8 than the other way around, but that is just my guess.
77.
AnonyGrl | November 17, 2011 at 7:36 am
You both bring up interesting points. And I can see both sides of it.
I prefer to say "I am a person." The rest of it only matters if you want to put me in a box. I am bisexual, but don't particularly care to be labelled as such, because I find it as unneccessary as labelling me as left handed or fond of brussel sprouts. If you want me to tell you about myself, I will be happy to discuss those various facts, but I would hate to see a newspaper headline reading "Bisexual red head saves puppy from an ice floe".
But yes, words do matter. For instance, I try to avoid "same sex marriage" in favor of "marriage equality".
78.
MJFargo | November 17, 2011 at 7:54 am
(I love Brussel sprouts too!)
79.
MightyAcorn | November 17, 2011 at 8:12 am
This is why I think today's ruling is so interesting…the question of standing for initiative proponents has been batted around the courts for years and no one has really ruled on it yet. It's a hot potato that landed here in CA and the import of the ruling is huge, not just here in CA but in all states that have the initiative process and on the federal courts (including SCOTUS) who hear the appeals. It 's especially intriguing because CASC are such wimps about imposing any restrictions on the process, even knowing how corrupt and (in this case) unconstitutional it is. I await with interest (and for all the insightful commentary by P8TTers, of course.)
80.
Bill S. | November 17, 2011 at 8:30 am
I disagree. DOMA has both a 5th and 10th Amendment challenge, and invokes federalist principles which could appeal to the conservative justices. Perry invokes only a 14th Amendment challenge. DOMA also deals with couples who are already married under the law and exists only to complicate their lives.
81.
John | November 17, 2011 at 10:10 am
Sexual minorities, to me, sounds like it doesn't necessarily include those trans people who are also straight. I don't think anyone would fly off the handle about it, though. Different terminology won't change who people are, but it does serve as a way of conveying your respect for others and your feelings about yourself. When you're talking about others, I try just to use the terminology they tell me they prefer. (Just as, if someone wanted to be called "Bill," I wouldn't call him "William.")
Otherwise, adjectives describe a person, clauses modify them. I am described by my gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, hair color, handedness, etc. I am modified by the cold I have right now, the way I feel about Brussels sprouts, and the parrots I have. Many people will feel that getting to the point where LGBT can be one of the things that describes you is sort of a culmination of their successful coming out and accepting themselves. In that way, deliberately de-emphasizing LGBT could come off as a sign of discomfort.
But I guess we all have our ways! I often avoid "marriage equality" in favor of just "equality."
82.
Guest | November 17, 2011 at 11:57 am
The 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court will issue a ruling when they are darned ready to. They do not speed things up based on phone calls, e-mails, or petitions from the general public. If you enjoy holding your breath, you can do so now.
83.
MJFargo | November 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm
That was beautiful, John.
84. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 21, 2011 at 9:46 am
[...] Collins’ mind on DOMA (to which Sen. Lieberman’s people responded). Later that day, the news broke that the California Supreme Court would decide on the issue of whether proponents of ballot [...]
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.