Leave a Comment Johan
Join P8TT and other LGBT blogs in thanking Gov. Gregoire for supporting marriage equality
February 9, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Dear P8TTers,
Today we’re participating in a Washington United for Marriage and Daily Kos blog swarm to help support the marriage equality campaign in Washington State. I’m joined by bloggers from Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, Good As You, AMERICABlog Gay, The Seattle Lesbian, The Bent Angle, on the-Ave, MadProfessah, HRC, Hella Bus, Horsesass.org, Step Forward, LGBT POV, FrontiersLA, the Left Shue, The New Civil Rights Movement and more, all of which are sharing this very same message today.
This has been an incredible week! On Tuesday a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, the court wrote,”Prop 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”
On Wednesday, the Washington State House passed a same-sex marriage bill, and now it the bill is headed to Governor Gregoire’s desk for her signature. She promised to sign the bill before Valentine’s Day!
Please click here to thank Governor Gregoire.
Governor Gregoire’s leadership was instrumental to the success of passing a marriage bill in Washington State. She not only supported the bill, but she introduced the bill. This is as much her legislation as it is our community’s legislation.
Please join us during this blog swarm to thank Governor Gregoire for her leadership and her friendship. There is little doubt our opponents will make their voices heard, but we know that together our voice for equality is so much stronger.
Please click here to the Washington United for Marriage’s and Daily Kos’ joint petition to thank Governor Gregoire for making history.
When our friends speak up for us, we need to speak up for our friends, so join us in thanking Governor Gregoire today!
Did you sign the thank you petition? Share it with your friends: http://wufm.it/4
Filed under: Marriage equality
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
24 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | February 9, 2012 at 9:09 am
§
2.
LCH | February 9, 2012 at 9:15 am
Signed and shared!
3.
Gregory in SLC | February 9, 2012 at 9:30 am
ditto! Great idea!
4.
Sam | February 9, 2012 at 9:43 am
OT: Prop 8 supporters discuss their reasoning on how to proceed–I found this part fascinating:
"Rehearing would permit the 9th Circuit to reframe the legal case and deliver a ruling that would affect marriage laws in other states, the outcome preferred by ProtectMarriage's supporters, Pugno said. Tuesday's ruling was limited to circumstances in California and would not affect other states.
A ruling by a larger 9th Circuit panel also "would raise the profile of the case and increase the attention the Supreme Court would give to it," Pugno said."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-201…
Suggests that they want en banc to give OUR side the broader reasoning, so they can take that to the Supreme Court. Crazy.
5.
frisky1 | February 9, 2012 at 9:59 am
Also signed and posted on FB.
This is off topic but very curious to me..CBS in NY reports that New Jersey Governor Christie was asked about the 9th circuit decision.
CBS writes (it was from their radio news broadcast): "Since California’s Proposition 8, which basically outlaws gay marriage, has been ruled unconstitutional, what effect does Gov. Chris Christie think the ruling will have on his preference to have New Jersey voters decide on the issue?"
Then they play this soundbite of Christie: "None. Because what we’re talking about here is a constitutional amendment, which could not be ruled as unconstitutional"
Am I missing something or is he suggesting that amendments to the New Jersey constitution are above federal Constitutional scrutiny? I have to assume he understands that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not a state court. Or is he talking about going for a Federal Constitutional ban? Of course it could just be poor or unclear reporting and he's answering a differently worded question. Or I could be totally missing something.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/court-toss…
6.
Ed Cortes | February 9, 2012 at 10:03 am
P8 also modified the CA Constitution – Illegally
7.
Ann S. | February 9, 2012 at 10:08 am
Frisky1, it sounds to me as though Gov. Christie is confused.
8.
Sagesse | February 9, 2012 at 10:26 am
@
9.
Ed Cortes | February 9, 2012 at 10:29 am
It looks like the H8ers have started the appeals process…
10.
Ann S. | February 9, 2012 at 10:35 am
No, there's no appeal yet. The email notices from the court have to do with the appeals paperwork going to the district court, according to Kathleen.
11.
Ed Cortes | February 9, 2012 at 10:43 am
Thanks, Ann! I'm sure it won't take them long, though!
12.
Leo | February 9, 2012 at 10:44 am
The two aren't necessarily connected. He may be saying that the Supreme Court is in general more likely to review an en banc decision.
13.
peterplumber | February 9, 2012 at 10:49 am
Some nutjob has decided to write to the 9th court. Here is the letter he wrote. Very humorous:
SUBJECT: Your ruling in Perry vs. Brown is unworthy of compliance or respect. Lately, I have wondered at why so many persons in government, and in higher education, make no sense. It seems to me that perhaps you are suffering from brain damage. I am graciously assuming that you were not bribed or threatened by "progressive" activists, but of course this is not clear.
Now, what could cause widespread brain damage? It could be deleterious effects from a lifetime of mind-altering drugs; it could be damage from the kind of disease that one gets from a life of depravity; it could be incapacity due to inbreeding; it could be trauma from head-banging sports. Or, it could be that you have suffered intellectual numbness from having attended the kind of elitist college that asks about your mom and dad on the application form (snicker). How should I know? I don't live your lifestyle.
14.
peterplumber | February 9, 2012 at 10:50 am
But there is another possibility of great public concern: toxins from mold infestation. Who knows what hallucinogens might be in the air of your courtrooms, chambers, law schools, and college "studies" departments? Judges and politicians aren't the only ones who go there. You have clerks and office workers, even though you might not have noticed them. The janitorial staff comes in after hours, and the general public may be exposed as visitors under a variety of circumstances.
Therefore, I urge you to contact your local environmental protection agency (state or federal, whatever), and inquire about conducting a review of the kind of places that you have frequented in your lives. It would be a shame if failure to take this simple precautionary step should result in mass public delusions. The situation is already bad.
If the problem is not environmental, and is not due to your own dissipative lifestyles, then it may be genetic. As a precaution, I urge you and all of your relatives to voluntarily practice birth control and abortion to the greatest extent allowable by law.
15.
peterplumber | February 9, 2012 at 10:50 am
Tell your friends, too, since birds of a feather tend to flock together. It is your civil right.
Understand that I'm not a California resident (was once). That's just a mailing address shown below. As far as the case in question goes, my only concern is that the federal system is being used to export California's collapse to other states.
With all due respect,
Robert Allgeyer
16.
Kathleen | February 9, 2012 at 11:02 am
Re the three email notices that came in from the courts. The first two, from the District Court, are just procedural matters – placeing Tuesday's orders on the district court docket. The third, from the 9th Circuit, is just an American exercising his right to crazy talk.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81085529/399
17.
Kevin | February 9, 2012 at 11:09 am
HAHAHAHAH! Amazing!
18.
Alex | February 9, 2012 at 11:17 am
USCA Memorandum as to [713] Notice of Appeal, filed by Dennis Hollingsworth, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Mark A. Jansson, Martin F. Gutierrez, Gail J. Knight, [800] Notice of Appeal, filed by Dennis Hollingsworth, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal, Mark A. Jansson, Martin F. Gutierrez, Gail J. Knight (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)
19.
Alex | February 9, 2012 at 11:18 am
ORDER of USCA as to [719] Notice of Appeal, filed by County of Imperial of the State of California, Isabel Vargas, Board of Supervisors of Imperial County (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)
20.
DaveP | February 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm
It sounds like he is badly misinformed and doesn't realize that Prop 8 WAS a state Constitutional amendment. This guy just keeps putting his foot in his mouth. The more he talks, the better for us.
21.
DaveP | February 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Buy that man a tin foil hat!!!
22.
MightyAcorn | February 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm
And either get him a scrip for Ativan or get him laid, he definitely needs something to mellow his harsh.
23.
nightshayde | February 9, 2012 at 3:39 pm
I've found that the best way to get judges to change their minds on an issue is to insult them.
Wait … wut?
24.
MightyAcorn | February 9, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Whoa. Who knew I was a decent, progressive American because of mold. I gotta stop eating that Cambazola cheese.
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.