Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

Background Trial analysis

by Adam Bink

I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is unconstitutional on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. Huge win. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Developing…

UPDATE (1:43 PST): Here’s the conclusion from the decision.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.  Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.  California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor  of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The full decision can be found here.

UPDATE (1:46): Other notable segment:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each
challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both
unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to
marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of
sexual orientation.

UPDATE (1:53 PST): From Courage Campaign:

Federal Judge rules Prop. 8 Unconstitutional
Courage Campaign: ruling “an historic milestone for loving families and our nation as a whole.”

LOS ANGELES — In a landmark ruling released minutes ago in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has found that California’s ban on marriage equality — also known as Proposition 8 — violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“This ruling is an historic milestone for millions of loving families, for all who have fought to realize the dream of equality under the law, and for our nation as a whole,” said Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs. “While today concludes the first step in a legal process that could take up to two years, Judge Walker’s ruling is a landmark victory in America’s centuries long war against discrimination, and the result of months of extraordinary work by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, and courageous plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo.”

Full press release can be found here.

UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”

He goes onto write:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

[...]

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

More to come as I read through the decision.

UPDATE (2:11): I just saw Geoff Kors from EQCA on ABC News from Market and Castro in San Francisco, who said “it appears there has been no stay issued”. If that’s right, it doesn’t mean the Ninth Circuit could not issue a stay, which would prevent same-sex couples from getting married, but it’s worth noting.

Update on this: It appears Kors was mistaken. Update below.

UPDATE (2:16): Arisha just checked in from Missouri, where she is on the ground for the NOM event in St. Louis tomorrow (and won’t that now be a doozy). She’ll be getting some video reactions from folks on the ground that we’ll have up when we get them.

UPDATE (2:23): The American Foundation for Equal Rights presser with Olson/Boies/plaintiffs has started. I will provide notable updates for those of you who can’t watch/are out and about.

Chad Griffin is speaking. He’s discussing principles that inspired the marches in Selma, the Stonewall riots, and other civil rights activism.

UPDATE (2:29): Chief Judge Walker issued a temporary stay:

Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.

The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.

The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.

CNN’s legal analyst, Andrew Cohen, says this means things are on hold for the time being, and they will give both sides a moment to make their case on whether marriages should be allowed or not before the next decision.

UPDATE (2:38 PST): NOM has released their “live video”, part of which is actually from a couple of days ago in Sioux City. Nice. And here’s an excerpt of their awesome statement:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM.  “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

“Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

Brown is going to do a live “response” with Q&A at 7 PM EST.

UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming.

UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above).

Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true.

UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue:

Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married?

Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can.

Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class?

Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review.

Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups?

Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades.

Question: On impact generally

Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?”

Question: On witnesses and trial generally

Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well.

UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond?

Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.

The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there.

UPDATE (3:22 PST): NOM just blasted out this e-mail:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8.

This is a ruling that not only ignores the clear, legally-enacted will of the people of California, but jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states and threatens to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage. We will fight back! Details to follow . . . .

You can read the decision, and follow all the latest coverage at www.prop8case.com. And please join me online today at 7 p.m. (ET), when I’ll check in from our Summer for Marriage bus tour to provide our official video response to the ruling.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Of course, it’s only judicial “arrogance” or “activism” when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.

FINAL UPDATE (3:35 PST): This will be the final update on this thread.

What’s on tap for the rest of the evening:

1. You all know Brian Leubitz here at Prop8TrialTracker.com. We’ll have an analysis piece up soon that gets into the nitty-gritty implications of this decision from his husband, Brian Devine, a litigator in California.

2. You all should make sure to head on over and ask Brian Brown a coupla questions at his “live chat” starting at 4 PM PST/7 PM EST, less than 30 minutes from now.

3. All of this work- blogging the Prop 8 trial since January, blogging NOM’s “Summer For Epic #NOMTurnoutFAIL In Empty Parking Lots Marriage” Tour, and providing coverage here at Prop8TrialTracker.com, costs a lot of money. It especially costs a lot per day for Arisha and the team to be out in the field with cameras, video, place to stay, gas, food, internet expenses. If you like our coverage and think we’re making a difference for the freedom to marry, contribute today to help keep it going.

If that’s not enough, I can double your interest (and money!). Tom Dolby and Drew Frist, just married last year, are up with a $25,000 matching ask to help keep this important work going.  So you chip in $20, it’ll be doubled to $40.

Chip in today. Let’s defend this decision.

Thanks for being a part of this community.

467 Comments

  • 1. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:42 am

    God bless us all!!!

    I love you guys.

  • 2. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:42 am

    ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!!!

  • 3. Eddie  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Awesome! =)

  • 4. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Yeah

  • 5. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Good God, man!

  • 6. StraightForEquality  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Hurray!

  • 7. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am

    YES!!!!!!!

    Now time for round 2

  • 8. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Yay!

  • 9. DazedWheels  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Yippee!!!!

  • 10. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Nice! I am awaiting the full text so I can read it. Now hearing cheering from the abc live tv feed :)

  • 11. Dave T  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Where can we find a link to the decision?

  • 12. Felyx  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    HOORAY!!! GTH NOM!!!

    Felyx and Kevyn!!!

  • 13. Mary Ellen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    RIGHT ON!!! HOORRAY!

  • 14. Jacob  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Did he rule on the stay?

  • 15. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    *cheers* we won the big win~ The best possible win hoo-ray~

  • 16. Bill  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:44 am

    This is the first time I have ever cried about this entire mess. In 2 years of living it here in California.

    I can finally just let go of all the anger and emotion I've held in my soul these last 2 years. Tears. Lots of tear. Thank god I have a private office.

    I know this is just the beginning, but just to hear the word UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just to hear someone acknowledge my humanity, our humanity.

    Lots and lots of tears.

  • 17. Stanford  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Hell Yeah!

  • 18. Keoni  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    This is an incredible time. Whatever the future holds, this moment is an historic point. The tears are running down my face…

  • 19. CaliGirl  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    *throws confetti in the air* YAY!

  • 20. Elliot  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Subs—OMIGOD YAAAAAYYYY!

  • 21. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    I burst into tears when I heard the cheers. OMG! So happy!!!!

  • 22. Heath  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    …can exhale now…

    Thanks for the update!

  • 23. Joel  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Where's the decision? I have to read it!!!

  • 24. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Reading now.

  • 25. Charles  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Oh yes.

  • 26. SpoonmanTX  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Yea! I'm secretly jumping for joy in my cubicell in Texas!

  • 27. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    And Justice for ALL even for MY children!!!!

  • 28. Jessica  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    THANK FSM! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 29. Tiffany  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    There is hope. I want to marry my fiancee of 9 years someday. I know it will happen.

  • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Happy joyful tears!

  • 31. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What about the stay……..did he issue one?

  • 32. jeff  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:47 am

    The evolution of our country towards fulfillment of its stated ideals takes a huge leap forward!!!!!

  • 33. LD  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

    YES! Nice job– you beat CNN, NYT, and facebook with this news!

  • 34. Pauline  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

    While I know the battle will continue, this makes me so happy.

  • 35. parker  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

    cool

  • 36. Mackenzie  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

    OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! YAYYYYYYYYY! I need to go take a break!

  • 37. Dano  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Woo Hoo!!! That is great news for equality. I hope this survives challenges through to SCOTUS.

  • 38. Felyx 4 Kevyn  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:49 am

    THE BIG ONE!!! (And Honey, it can never be too BIG!!!)

  • 39. New  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Owesome!!! I have no words just tears.

  • 40. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Breathing.

  • 41. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:49 am

    YES!!! Did I understand correctly, that marriage resumes full equality *now*, that my friend's daughter can make her new marriage legal? Without delay?

  • 42. James Tuttle  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    I feel so much love right now for everyone on this site. It has been months and months but WE WON!!!!

  • 43. Mike  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Is the decision stayed?

  • 44. MJFargo  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Thank you. I'm so glad I got the news first from you guys. You've been a beacon during a very dark time. Prop 8 weighed very heavy on my soul, and now…. Yipee!

  • 45. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    W00T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THANK YOU AFER!
    Thank you, Tex Olsen & David Bois! Thank you Courage Campaign, P8TT, and everyone!

    ***Happy dance***

    Now, what about the stay?

    And then, what about the rest of the country?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 46. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Alright so here goes the questions, it failed Rational Basis… does that mean we have Strict Scrutiny application now?

  • 47. wwll  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

    o/

  • 48. Mercedes  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:51 am

    I am in tears!!! What an amazing win– FINALLY!! We are so badly needed this!!!

  • 49. Marlene  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Yeeeee-HAH!!

    This is right up there with Loving v Virginia in expanding the rights of couples to be lawfully married!!

    I'll be pouring over Judge Walker's decision, and hoping he hasn't issued a stay so more couples who got shut out in CA can get married!!

    TAKE *THAT* BIGOTS!!

  • 50. El Bobbito  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:51 am

    I can't download from the Scribd link. Any other links to a PDF of the decision out there?

  • 51. Susan  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:51 am

    YahOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • 52. Balu  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Love you all , hugs and tears :D

  • 53. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    No, it doesn't. Alas. But I've only seen the summary.

  • 54. Kenny  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    OMG!!!! Wait, but did he issue a stay???

  • 55. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Hi, Louis!

    Guess what? The good guys *won.*

    Love,
    Fiona (who is close to tears)

  • 56. Frijondi  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    God bless you, Vaughn Walker.

  • 57. Benjamin Geiger  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Congratulations, everybody.

    As a straight man, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'm glad to see a blow struck for equality, and this is the result I've been hoping for.

  • 58. William  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Can't type, too busy crying happy.

    Please tell me they can't appeal this. Please.

  • 59. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Here's another link, just to spread out the web traffic:
    Decision http://www.scribd.com/doc/35375497/Decision

    Also, the people at Marriagetrial.com are getting ready to do a live webcast, reading the decision.

  • 60. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but when the decision reads: Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

    That sure sounds like no stay to me …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 61. Rick  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:54 am

    HISTORIC!! We have overcome!

  • 62. Gus  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Yeah, and which amendment do the Republicans want to mess with?

  • 63. Rebecca  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Wait wait, does this mean gay men and women can marry in CA now?
    "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples…"

    What is the ruling on the stay?

  • 64. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:55 am

    They can appeal to the 9th circuit, and then if they fail there and the court takes the case, the Supreme Court.

    But we want that I think because that means this makes our marriages legal all across the US.

  • 65. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Doesn't look like it, no.

  • 66. eleanor  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Thank you to everyone at Courage Campaign for all of your hard work and for keeping us all so dutifully informed. Thank you thank you thank you thank you. What a beautiful day.

  • 67. Susan R Barnes  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Oh My God! I have tears streaming down my face!

  • 68. ralzma  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Holy shit.

    I mean. Holy shit. HOLY SHIT. This is amazing.

  • 69. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

    That really does appear to be the case, yes!

  • 70. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:57 am

    So the next big heart-in-mouth wait: refreshing the site to see if Bryan or Rick or any of our other legal eagles has posted a full explanation of what just happened and what it means…

  • 71. Dave  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:57 am

    This is wonderful news. However, after each victory we should take a retrospective moment for all of those for which this decision is too late. The couples who loved, laughed, and shared together but were ultimately unable to make the commitment of marriage before one passed away. Or, for those in other countries who face mortal danger at being a member of the GLBT community. This is a great step, but we have a long way to go.

    Dave

  • 72. Mandy  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:57 am

    This is a win for humankind everywhere!!!!!!!

  • 73. James Tuttle  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    I Concur!! HOLY SHIT!!! I can't believe that CNN or any other major news source has the official ruling and we do. THANK YOU TRIAL TRACKER!!!!!!!!! YOU ROCK!!! EVERYONE ON HERE ROCKS!!!!

  • 74. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Yep. I was watching in astonishment last night as people talked in all seriousness about repealing the 14th Amendment.

    So much for the "we're strict Constitutionalists" nonsense that the far right is always spewing.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 75. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    So is there seriously no stay on this?

    The impression I had was that it was really unlikely that he would do that.

  • 76. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    I THINK that the very last paragraph, that the clerk is ordered to enter judgement "without bond in favor of the plaintiffs.. and against the defendants…" means no stay, right?

  • 77. Janice  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Thank you David Boise and Ted Olson!!!! You have given our community a tremendous gift!

  • 78. Dwight  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Congratulations to gay folks, and heck, congratulations to us straight folks that also love our American values.

    Freedom, Equality and Justice!

  • 79. ArishaMichelle  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am

    shaking with excitement; congratulations to all….the fight continues!

  • 80. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Lighting a candle for those poor souls. May they find each other in the next life, remember, and be able to love again. )O(

  • 81. jrex  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Did he rule on whether we are a "suspect class"?

  • 82. Travis O'Brien  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am

    This site has the text of the decision: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-

  • 83. Jarrell  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Beautiful. I'm speechless over here. I just informed my community and we're all going nuts!!!

  • 84. Tigger  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:00 am

    PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE PEKING DUCK!!

    Who wants a hot husband with a friendly disposition??

  • 85. Miles  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:00 am

    the remedies seem to suggest we can get married, like, tomorrow?? would somebody with a JD behind their last name confirm this??

  • 86. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Ha, reading it now. And of course, the infamous quote is there: "Your honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know"

    Still waiting for a pdf – scribd pisses me off :)

  • 87. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:01 am

    TAKE THAT NOMbies, LD$, RC, AND ALL THE OTHER H8ERS OF THE WORLD!!!!!!

    EQUALITY WINS!!!!!!!

  • 88. Angel  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Prop 8 document: http://tinyurl.com/3488op2 #prop8

  • 89. Diane  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Doing the Bohemian Dance of Happy Feet……. Can't wipe the grin off my face… 1 big step closer to equality…

  • 90. Elliott  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:01 am

    THIS IS RAD! I am so happy as is my husband. Better than Christmas, Disneyland, and vodka combined!

  • 91. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:02 am

    [youtube

    92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:02 am

    This calls for a SONG!!!

  • 93. JC  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Time to pop the cork!

  • 94. Carolyn  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Thank goodness. And I mean "goodness" in a quite literal sense. And thanks to the folks at Prop 8 Trial Tracker for keeping us so devotedly in the loop.

  • 95. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Hmm…NYTimes has a "breaking news" banner but no link.

    At the risk of sounding petty, I will say that lord almighty I can't wait to hear the anti-marriagers weeping and wailing over this one.

  • 96. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Okay, the link didn't work, so let me try again.

  • 97. Slade  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Q About the last bit, them stating that they cannot pursue to uphold Prop 8, does that mean they can't appeal the judgement?

  • 98. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Yeah, that's what it looked like to me too

  • 99. Em  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:03 am

    HEEEEELLLLLLL YEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

    *okay, done acting like a nineteen-year-old*

    But seriously, this is a huge victory, especially in conjunction with Massachusetts's overturning of DOMA. Even with the appeals process looming so long ahead of us, we can't help but be optimistic now more than ever before.

    My only humble request is that CourageCampaign keep following this fight and explaining the process and the possibilities to those of us who aren't necessarily destined to careers in law.

  • 100. bb  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:04 am

    I can't read scribd.com. Is there a pdf file I can read? Until i can read the whole decision, I can't believe it's true.

  • 101. Lee  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:04 am

    HAHA! I'm going to enjoy reading all this tonight when I get home. =)

  • 102. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Close enough to cry now! AMAZING!!!

  • 103. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Update posted with some notable graphs I am highlighting.

  • 104. Another Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:05 am

    HUGS FOR EVERYONE! AAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

  • 105. El Bobbito  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I'm with you. Scribd and the GoodAsYou site just don't work for me. I'm dying to get a complete PDF

  • 106. Adrian Fii  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I know that feeling.
    I moved here two years ago literally a WEEK before gay marriage was legalized and I moved here to be with my fiancee. The only reason he and I didn't get married was because we thought it was going to be a repeat of San Fransisco back in 2004 and we didn't want that heart break.
    This is the first time in the two years of use living together that we finally get to be happy and just be.
    Hug the one you love, I'm going to do that tonight when he gets home!

  • 107. Erik in SD  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Ramen!!!

  • 108. Mark  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

    August 4th is OUR Independence Day!

  • 109. DK  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Not much I can say, I am overwhelmed and don't have words (and a lot of tears), but here is a HUG to all of you from a straight supporter.
    DK in CT

  • 110. Happy  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

    LLB! I've been lurking for some time, not able to bring myself to watch or comment on the NOM Tour Tracker – too disturbing. But I've faithfully been checking in and reading the comments.

    What a day in my life, in our lives. My fiancee and I don't know whether to laugh, cry, cheer, or run to the nearest justice of the peace before someone changes things again (I know that last one might be a bit premature, since a stay has already been requested – don't know yet about the results of that).

    Anyway, hello to you – and congratulations to us all!

  • 111. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:06 am

    SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION included in the ruling.

  • 112. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Walking on the ceiling right now. Judge Walker (Texas Ranger) is a true hero of justice, and I would like to see him elevated to the US Supreme Court before, well, before this case gets there and f&%$ing Scalia gets his filthy hands all over it.

  • 113. Lydia  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    I had the same reaction. And my office door is closed, too, Bill!!

  • 114. David  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    This is one of the few times politics will ever make me very happy.

  • 115. AlexL  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    It doesn't matter if you're straight or not, it's still a cause for cheer! My best friend is straight, and even though Prop. 8 does not directly affect him or his wife, he described Prop. 8 as an "intellectual insult" and he was incredibly upset when he had to face a few not-so-intellectual relatives at Thanksgiving.

  • 116. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    "The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review."

    Page 122.

  • 117. Angel  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:07 am

    The judge did NOT stay his ruling pending an appeal, so California is able to legally issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples now #prop8

  • 118. Robert  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:08 am

    What AWESOME news! So excited!

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:08 am

    One step closer to the US moving towards a modern Civilized society.

  • 120. ralzma  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Ahem: "The trial records show that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation."

  • 121. Andres Ramos  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:09 am

    the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice!!!!

  • 122. JackSF  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Thank you Cleve, Rick, Adam and everybody else who put so much into this effort. This is a major milestone in our march for equality – and at the end we'll have parade to commemorate all the marching! Courage brings success.

  • 123. Lee  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:09 am

    THANK YOU! I've been asking. XD

  • 124. sHANE  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Thank you Trail Tracker!!! You guys have are my heros!

  • 125. Happy  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Actually, the LA Times had it at 1:38 p.m., but I think it took a few minutes for it to load onto the web site.

  • 126. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:10 am

    The only reason we are here today is becasue we stand on the shoulders of Giants. Those who came before us and little by little cracked that door of hatred and bigotry open inch by inch, even those who gave their lives and are not with us today, they pushed the door open a little further in their liftime and with their deaths. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants.

    Today is the day that state sanctioned discrimination ends. I Straight Grandmother say, Equality Today…Equality Tomorrow…Equality Forever. See if anybody can remember that phrase but instead of the word Equality substituit another word.

  • 127. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Holy shit.

    Wasn't there another case where they didn't apply strict because they didn't feel like they had to? Was that Romer?

    God my mind isn't working right now, but something about that sounds awfully familiar…

  • 128. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Yipee Em.

    I think Courage Campaign plans to follow this through to the end and beyond. They ROCK!!!!!!

  • 129. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:11 am

    Not that I'm one to gloat, but you can imagine what the wall posts look like over at NOM's Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman Facebook page.

    };-D

  • 130. Geoffrey Mason  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:11 am

    April 21, 2011 – here we come!!!

  • 131. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    The stay will be ruled upon as a separate matter.

  • 132. Gary  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010

  • 133. Rebecca  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    OMG they used rational basis! That's the same way they struck down part of DOMA. Yay for judicial precedent!

  • 134. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Strict scrutiny? That's HUGE.

  • 135. Breaking the Silence  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Hello all. Guilty of coming here nearly every day since Prop 8 went through/site's startup, and never contributing a word. :P Just want to say what a wonderful group of people and top-notch site, and YES!! YES!! YES!!! What a great victory! Hang-in for the rest of the war. =) Ahhh…Subbing?

  • 136. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:13 am

    WATCH THE http://WWW.MARRIAGETRIAL.COM RIGHT NOW FOR THE LIVE FEED OF THE READING OF THE DECISION!!!

  • 137. El Bobbito  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Looks like the decisions is officially up as a PDF on the court website: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files

    Getting a 404 now, but it may be server overload

  • 138. Aya  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Congratulations, everyone! I'm close to tears here, as well. I moved to California (from IOWA!!) in 2007, hoping to find a more progressive environment. Instead, I got Prop 8 and Iowa got marriage equality.

    I'm so very emotional right now. This is the first step to full equality!

    Now, about that stay…anyone want to clear that up?

    *hugs*! Love conquers all!

  • 139. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Wait… we got EVERYTHING? Strict scrutiny, equal protection, due process AND no stay? Really? Am I reading this right??

  • 140. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    The list of names of the brave and rational men and women to thank for this incredible victory, this historic leap forward, is far too long to nullify their efforts by not listing them individually, so may a humble "thank you ALL" suffice.

    Thank you ALL–everyone who fought, cried, suffered, hoped and dreamed this miracle into being–for what you have done. There may be hope for humanity yet! :)

  • 141. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    perfect!

  • 142. El Bobbito  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Mirror site up: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf

  • 143. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

    YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY I thought so! -dances- STRICT SCRUTINY~ He pulled a nice little trick there, saying Prop 8 failed even rational basis but that marriage equality DOES require strict scrutiny. HAHAHAHAHA

  • 144. Aya  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:15 am

    I didn't see strict scrutiny, unless Judge Walker analyzed it under rational basis -and- the higher levels of scrutiny…but I haven't read the entire ruling yet, so dare to hope?

    Congratulations!

  • 145. Sean  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:15 am

    I was so busy smiling my ass off and calling everyone I know that I forgot to leave a comment here. Silly me.

    I love everyone here!! Keep up the fight! We will CONTINUE to prevail!!

  • 146. Alicia  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:15 am

    This is my first time posting, but I have been glued to this blog since the trial in January.

    I can't even express how happy I am with this decision. It's so hard to accept how irrational fear/hatred are still the norm for so many. Thank goodness for the wonderful team of lawyers who presented our case so compellingly, and for a rational, fair-minded judge who listened.

    Hugs to you all

  • 147. blademaiden  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Congratulations to us all! I'm sure we're going to the Supreme Court, but this is still a wonderful victory.

    I hope to see you all at the local rallies!!

  • 148. Todd  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Woohoo! When does it take effect?

    Love,
    Todd

  • 149. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    He said Prop 8 failed even on rational basis, but marriage equality itself deserves strict scrutiny!

  • 150. Bob  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    "Marriage under law, is a union of EQUALS" oh sweet Jesus, at last victory

  • 151. ralzma  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Ahem: “The trial records show that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation.”

    Just food for thought.

  • 152. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    About an hour ago, Todd!

  • 153. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Thanks to everyone! The trial trackers, nom trackers, notetakers, kleenex passers, crowds of protest and crowds of cheers!! Cathy & I are doing a happy dance and sending love & hugs to California!

    SOOOO COOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!
    :)

  • 154. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Okay, folks! Her is one of the songs, since the last links did not work. Finally, we have what the right to sing this to our loved ones and have it recognized legally!
    http://new.music.yahoo.com/kathy-mattea/videos/vi

  • 155. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:18 am

    In Romer, they chose not to make any determination on what classification applies. Here, Walker made a definitive determination that Strict Scrutiny/Suspect Classification applies.

  • 156. Dave T  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:18 am

    As another straight man, this also doesn't affect my marriage (despite what the prop 8 liars keep saying).

    I'm overjoyed to know that my son will be free to love whomever he chooses and form whatever family he wants.

    And even if they don't teach it in schools, my wife & I will be teaching him that same-sex relationships are equal to opposite-sex ones.

  • 157. Frankincensy  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Absolutely fantastic news!

  • 158. Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:18 am

    I think so!

  • 159. Todd  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Aha: Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending. from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-l

  • 160. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Judgment has been Stayed. I will give details in a moment.

  • 161. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

    NOM hasn't posted the ruling on any of their sites yet (including the prop8case.com site : )

    But am waiting to read their spin while I cry happy tears with all of you.

  • 162. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

    That's exactly what it is- a "no-stay".

    That said, the judge may LATER issue a stay of verdict once the proponents submit their appeals document, but for now he's acting as a judge should- as if his ruling is the final word on the matter and that, absent any appeal, there's no reason for his ruling not to immediately take effect.

  • 163. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

    And here is the other one I tried to post earlier:

    You hear this one NOM?
    NOBODY'S Gonna Rain on our Parade!
    http://new.music.yahoo.com/kathy-mattea/videos/vi

  • 164. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-

  • 165. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    dang. not sure words describe this feeling

  • 166. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Stay issued, per ABC7.

  • 167. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    I don't know but this is on the dockets:

    ORDER granting [706] Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

    Not a legal expert.

  • 168. David  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Re the stay — Judge Walker stayed entry of judgment until the motion to stay the case pending appeal can be briefed and decided. So that means that his nullification of Prop 8 doesn't take effect yet, and whether it will apply during the pendency of the appeal has yet to be decided. Defendants have until Friday to file a brief opposing the stay.

  • 169. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Page 132 "A private moral view that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.." and then a bit later he quotes another decision "The Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them."

    Well, that does NOM in, for one, doesn't it?

  • 170. Helen in Ireland  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Cheers and congratulations from a straight supporter of Marriage Equality in Ireland. I am delighted for all my friends in California, this is WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!

  • 171. cc  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    This is one great day to be alive! Yes!

  • 172. Brandy  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    I have so much that I want to say, but I can't….I'm just speechless. Just sitting here in my office crying and filled with all kinds of emotions! Thank you, P8TT for everything!!

  • 173. gayathomemom  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    "marriage under law is a union of equals"

    Wow, Vaughn's decision is thorough, poignant and groundbreaking. He has taken every argument that has EVER been heard from anti-equality supporters and subsequently made them absolutely archaic, discriminatory and invalid.

    This is what we have been waiting for, everyone. This is the beginning of the end of marriage inequality.

    Ironic that it comes on me and my partner's domestic partnership anniversary. One we don't celebrate because it was done outside a booth at a gay pride in 5 minutes. It was just a piece of paper to us.

    Our marriage will be something we will celebrate, however, after 10 years of being together. And our son will be the ring-bearer. :)

  • 174. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    UPDATE: Walker has order the decision stayed until the Motion to stay pending appeal is decided.

    Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.

    The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.

    Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.

    The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.

    I'll post a link when I get caught up. Walker is issuing a number of order related to the decision and the PACER system is sluggish right now.

    I thought it important to get this one out right away. This is, essentially, a temporary stay to give time to consider the question of whether a longer stay should be granted that would be in effect throughout the next appeals stage.

  • 175. Zachary  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Reading this full ruling is an AMAZING experience! It's so refreshing to see all the things here we've been thinking all along.

    On Blankenhorn's testimony, for example: "The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight."

    Ouch!

  • 176. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay
    the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the
    motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.
    The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.

    Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.

    The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.

  • 177. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Pg 133 "Tradition alone cannot support legislation"

    He didn't let them get away with ANYTHING.

  • 178. Russell Manaois  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Walker decision, p.122 – "The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review."

  • 179. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    good for you! I'm soo happy about this. even when it's still going on for much longer this is the first historical step. and what's best: following the trial I found a family here! thanks guys!

  • 180. Todd  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Aw, I meant the marrying part. Sadly, not yet.

    Love,
    Todd

  • 181. Rev. Will Fisher  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Amen! Score one for equality! I say that as a married hetero Christian. Hopefully NY will soon follow suit and we affirming clergy can earn some $$$ for doing a wedding or two(;

  • 182. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:23 am

    here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-

  • 183. LittleMo  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Erik and Jessica, your replies made me laugh through the tears of joy streaming down my face (after, that is, I asked my soulmate to explain to me just what Ramen, a staple of perennially-broke college students, had to do with same-sex marriage) and I had to write and thank you for it.

  • 184. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:24 am

    LOL

    Got one…and I get to marry him now!

    HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE

  • 185. Todd  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Thanks for the details!

    Love,
    Todd

  • 186. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:24 am

    YEAH! This from an activist judge appointed by George H.W. Walker!

    Dave

  • 187. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:26 am

    That, I believe, would be a big old DOUBLE fail right there! He upholds strict scrutiny but dumps Prop 8 for both that AND rational basis review.

  • 188. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Even vodka????

    LOL

  • 189. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Thank you all at prop8trialtrakcer for your tireless efforts. You have been my only trusted source of information.

  • 190. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:27 am

    R.I.P.

    Proposition 8

    11-5-2008 ~ 8-4-2010

    Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, if it wasn't for bigotry; sexism would bust.

  • 191. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:28 am

    UPDATE: ORDER denying Imperial County's request to intervene as a defendant http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377535/Doc-709

  • 192. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Oh, OUCh, indeed!

  • 193. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Who will defend it now?

  • 194. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:30 am

    LOL, Imperial County — too little and WAY too late.

  • 195. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Glad you broke your silence :-)
    BIG HUGS!!!!

  • 196. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Link to the ORDER: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377628/Doc-710

  • 197. TPAKyle  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:31 am

    From the NOMblog site:

    "Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedent judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8. This is a ruling that jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states, threatening to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage. We will fight back! Details to follow . . ."

    How dare that activist Federal Judge burst open in unprecedented judicial arrogance and actually interpret the laws of our land based on the Constitutuion, rather than the Bible! The nerve!

    What a bunch of losers Maggie, Brian and Louis are!

  • 198. El Bobbito  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:31 am

    I'm with you, Dwight. Straight as can be, but have been supporting equal rights since this whole fiasco began. I follow more closely than some gay couples I know…

  • 199. Katherine  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Congratulations to California; we're all seen as fully human today — at least by Judge Walker. Thanks to everyone who is committing so much time to this issue.

  • 200. Chris B  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:32 am

    I like the comment Walker wrote: "…institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage."

    And that's what this is about. We are not changing marriage, we just have come to understand that gays and lesbians aren't mentally defective (not sure what the clinical term is) and can form healthy family units just as straight people can, and those should be recognized as 'marriages'.

  • 201. James Tuttle  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:33 am

    I'm confused about the stay and how long it will last for but since Prop 8 is history i don't care. I can wait. But can someone clarify for me??

  • 202. Captain America  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Good ol' 14th Amendment! Wait a minute…isn't that the one that the Republicans are trying to overturn? Quick, I'm off to the Quinjet with the Avengers!

  • 203. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Thanks, Dwight!! It's about being human, and pro-human happiness!

  • 204. Larry  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Let's repeal all religious hatred. Eveybody is celebrating except the haters……..the way it should be. Focus on the Family should have it's tax free status revoked and pay back taxes for up in your face political activity instead of saving souls.

  • 205. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:35 am

    The first stay is temporary — just until they have a hearing on a permanent stay. Once a permanent stay is in place, it remains in place until an appellate court issues its ruling.

  • 206. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Voting for marriage is not a "core civil right." That's ridiculous. They can twist it however they want, but they are just wrong.

    I agree with you, TPAKyle!

  • 207. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:35 am

    I am reading the decision from Judge Walker and he actually quotes the "You Honor, my answer is: I dont know" statement! Classic! You can find it on page 9 of the document.

  • 208. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Really SUSPECT Classification???
    Woo Hoo I better stop listening to the Celebration video by Kool and the Gang and start reading..

  • 209. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:36 am

    I absolutely LOVE how many people are coming out of the woodworks right now. There are so many names that I don't recognize. I ran to every building at Fort Mason, San Francisco, where we have offices and announced the decision to everyone I could tell. There were many hugs to go around. I even went down to the gym to let my boss know. Tonight is going to be a great night, just as soon as I can get out of work (that is if I get any done in the next couple hours, too lol)

  • 210. Bob  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Yes in our moment of joy and victory, I remember all those who died, all those who have been beaten, all those who have been discriminated against in any form, for how they carry themsleves in this life, together we are working towards, the evolution of the speicies, were ALL are EQUAL

    My special thoughts to baby Roy, beaten to death just the other day for acting like a girl. we were coming to the rescue, and we continue to do so, when Rainbow Children, are fully accepted, and men stop fearing differences, the world will be a better place, your life is not forgotten by me, and anyone else who shared your experience, that is why we work all the harder, to stop the ignorance spewed by religions who spew fear, we're fighting hard so no one else gets rolled under the wheels of that NOM bus. of animus.

    I am truly blessed to have lived to see this day, many who were the victims of fear, expressed as hatred, are celebrating with us today in spirit.

    For all those who have been or presently feel beaten, find a new master. it is not easy to leave biological families, and church communities, but it is possible, come join the freedom train, let justice and mercy reign.

  • 211. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I think they mean "voting AGAINST marriage".

  • 212. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:38 am

    American Foundation For Equal Rights has a .pdf version here http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filing

  • 213. Captain America  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:38 am

    I told you the 14th Amendment was the ticket, but then again I was raise by wolves(Lawyers!).

  • 214. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:40 am

    My neighbors (all heterosexual families with children) are high-fiving, texting, emailing and calling me in congratulations…NOM you can't even get 800,000 people across the US to back you up!

    bye bye little unamerican patriot bigots

  • 215. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Per NOM(FAIL)Blog: "This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

    Bring it on.

  • 216. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:41 am

    134,184 people have read it on Scribd so far.

  • 217. Gwendolyn K.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Hallelujah! This is constitutional!

  • 218. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I think that was their tactic..I don't know, I don't understand, I didn't read it…

  • 219. James Tuttle  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:43 am

    I thought the stay was in effect until Walker received plantiff's response. A non-trial decision will be issued. Does anyone have a time fram on when he would make such a decision?

  • 220. Owen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case.

  • 221. Owen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:43 am

    ;)

  • 222. PamC  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Can't get over this! Calling friends…..'later, everyone!

  • 223. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:44 am

    good term Larry "religious hatred". there are so many religious people out there who don't hate. who follow morals as if they WERE sacred. the haters don't follow morals, they are trying to create their own…and it's not working

  • 224. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:46 am

    One more straight ally here, trying to contain the tears since I'm at work.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 225. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Only someone whose position was explainable in the context of rationality – and not personal opinion – could have won it.

  • 226. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:47 am

    If I understand correctly, though, the permanent stay can be denied?

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 227. Ed  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:47 am

    I would also like to ponder something else as well…..This should prompt states with prop8-like amendments to reconsider their laws…..
    Agree?

    Ed

  • 228. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Exactly what we were looking for it to do, Brian. Good of you to notice!

  • 229. PhillyKarl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

    My faith in humanity has been restored. I am so thankful for everyone here, and when SSM finally gets federal recognition, YOUR ALL INVITED TO OUR WEDDING!!! YEA!!!!!

  • 230. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Yes, the permanent stay could be denied.

  • 231. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

    The Judge also quoted their "We dont need evidence" line. It is satisfying to see Judge Walker point out how rediculous their defense was:)

  • 232. eDee  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow!!!!!!!

  • 233. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Because this hurts them, how, exactly? Not at all. That's how.

  • 234. Mandy  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:50 am

    I seriously cannot stop smiling! I know that there is a long road ahead but still can't help but smile and just enjoy this moment.

  • 235. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:50 am

    And if they don't, any cases like this one brought up against them will have THIS case as a very strong precedent.

  • 236. Marius  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Congratulations all around =)
    Though this is realy just the beginning, it is a good omen for what might be ahead!

  • 237. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Walker actually ruled that strict scrutiny applies to all laws that treat gays and lesbians differently. He held that gays and lesbians are a suspect class. He also held that this law fails on even a rational basis standard so there was no need to apply the strict scrutiny standard in this case. That's where the "irrational" language comes from.

  • 238. Lydia  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:52 am

    What an overwhelmingly wonderful day! Thank you Trial Tracker! You've been a good friend to all of us over the months. As a lesbian, and a fundraiser for another cause in another state, I just want to remind everyone that giving $10 or $25 to this organization is a great way to show your appreciation! I mean, I'll spend times that tonight celebrating at the bar!! :)

  • 239. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Dave please please please take as many pix as you can….we who can't be there desperately want to see the smiling joyous faces of our brothers and sisters.

  • 240. Ken  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Hey, I had some misty eyes and I'm straight! Very happy for this decision!

  • 241. Jay  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:53 am

    The real hope lies in the repeal courts. If this decision is overturned, nothing has changed. If the repeal hearing judges rule in favor of this decision, we have made a huge step toward equality.

  • 242. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:53 am

    AMEN Anonygrl. Other states might not have the opportunity to get lawyers like Boies and Olson, but they at least now have this case and decision, set in stone. My state may be the last (unless we get a win in SCOTUS) and I am so happy for Cali right now.

  • 243. truthspew  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I am ecstatic about this ruling. Yes it will more likely than not be appealed but I suspect the bigots will lose on appeal too.

    Time to open that bottle of vino I've been saving for this occasion.

  • 244. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Heh, so I go skim it and download the pdf, and see over 200 posts to this thread :)

    Gotta go food shopping and read in more detail (the PDF this time). But it sure looks like the 'Big Win'. Lot's of quoteables too, like:

    'Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative.'

    Lots of good stuff! :)

  • 245. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:56 am

    I am so pleased to hear you have a son. His life will be like many other families he knows and plays with when his parents are married. Blessed are the children, they will get so much out of this ruling.

  • 246. adambink  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Hey all, update posted from Q&A with Olson on the stay issue.

  • 247. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Anyone in SF, please look for me and say hi. I will have on a black jacket with a blue scarf. My sign will say LESBIANS LOVE BOIES on one side and GAYS LOVE BOIES on the other. I want to meet any and all of you!

    Now if only my husband could get here so I can leave work.

  • 248. Adam  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:58 am

    True Christians may celebrate knowing that . . .

    Isaiah 54:17 (King James)

    No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

    OR (New International Version)

    No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me," declares the LORD.

  • 249. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for fielding the questions, l8r_g8r. I'm still just trying to finish reading the decision.

    BTW, though the official orders haven't come through on PACER yet, I'm sure you read that Tam's Motion to Withdraw is denied. Walker also denied Proponents' Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to return their copy of the trial recordings (though they remain under protective order).

  • 250. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Ya made me giggle and spit water out my nose
    LOL

  • 251. PhillyKarl  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Praise Him, all creatures here below!

  • 252. Lauren  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Thank you, Judge Walker! WONDERFUL NEWS!

  • 253. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:02 am

    It's constitutional once you take it out.

  • 254. Suzanne Oswald  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:02 am

    On my way shortly to Hillcrest to rally in San Diego! It's a beautiful day!

  • 255. JT1962  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Something I just posted over at NOM's blog, after reading their "commentary" on the decision. I'm sure it will be taken off after they "moderate" it but I wanted to share it for now.

    Posted August 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Wow. Had the decision been the opposite and made by a straight judge, would you have laughed at us if we called it a biased judge? Or would you have merely said the right decision had been made? See, the problem is, no matter who you are, you have a side in this decision. It's a foregone conclusion that you were going to use the terms "activist judge" or "biased decision" among others. It's just too bad that you're blinded by your desire for control. Secular marriage, CIVIL marriage, is not about children. It's about love and committment. Something I don't think you really truly know anything about. And Brian? It takes much more than Congress to get rid of a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

  • 256. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

    'Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.'

    Yep, those were beautiful words :)

  • 257. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

    “This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

    Wait. Was that an inadvertent true statement?

    Back to reading.

  • 258. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:04 am

    CNN LIVE. AFER legal team speaks.

  • 259. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:05 am

    True, it was not stayed in his order, but the abc live feed's talking heads stated that a stay was in effect and marriages could not start up.

    Would love to know for sure though.

  • 260. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Okay, everyone … this is where I "out" Captain America.

    He's Mr. Fiona64. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 261. Dave P.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Whoa! I was just on my way out of the office and something happened & I had to rush back to the computer and mention it – A straight co-worker of mine, someone from a very conservative background and not someone who I would have expected to be a supporter, just stopped me on my way out and asked me "so how did the prop 8 ruling go? Is it really overturned?" I told him yes, and that it felt great to know that my state will no longer consider me a second class citizen. He shook my hand and congratulated me, and it was clear that he really meant it. It was hard to hold back the tears. What a day. What a day. OK, gotta run. I'll be celebrating with all of you, all over the world…..

  • 262. Ray in MA  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:06 am

    ONE SMALL STEP FOR A JUDGE.

    A GIANT LEAP FOR GAY PRIDE!

    THANK YOU AFER!

  • 263. Douglas  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:06 am

    NOM blog with comments open:
    http://nomblog.com/1256/

    Sorry if posted more than once, having trouble with comments.

  • 264. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:06 am

    TPAKyle – YOU are soooo funny.
    OTOH, NOM is HYSTERICAL, I am laughing my guts out.

  • 265. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:07 am

    seconed from me – in the female version though :)

  • 266. Dan Hess  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:08 am

    I love you all too. ^_^

    This is my favorite part:

    That's what we've been saying all along: these homophobic numbnuts are the ones trying to change the definition of marriage, WE'RE the ones protecting it by making it open to all.

    Regardless, we kicked überass, and let's not be afraid to shout it from the rooftops. The game's not over yet, but we've got hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place! Let's hear it for equality!

  • 267. Hazuki  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Good :) I was hoping this would be challenged on due-process grounds.

    Personally this lesbian is for government being completely uninvolved in marriage, neither coercing nor forbidding any religious institution to perform any ceremony…but also for extending exactly equal civil unions to all. Marriage is religious; this is about benefits mostly.

    May love light the way, now until the extinction of the human race!

  • 268. TPAKyle  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Now if we can only get the same decision in Maine. I'm in Portland all the time and hated to see the goons with clipboards forcing Question 1 last summer. (not to mention the aftermath)

    Fortunately, NOMs thin veneer has cracked wide open and their true animus has been exposed!

  • 269. Jonathan H  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:09 am

    "This is a ruling that jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states, threatening to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage."

    That doesn't even begin to make sense! I certainly don't remember any of my friends having to campaign for a marriage license. I know I've never seen "Can Mr. John Smith marry Miss Ann Jones?" on a ballot.

    Since when do we vote for or against marriage?

  • 270. Ray in MA  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:10 am

    "They" couldn't use him.

    and

    "We" didn't need him.

  • 271. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Americans United [for the Separation of Church and State] Applauds Court Ruling Against Proposition 8
    http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2

    "In a November 2008 referendum, voters narrowly approved Proposition 8, a ballot measure that removed the right of same-sex couples to obtain civil marriages. The referendum was dominated by lavishly funded political front groups representing the Roman Catholic bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and fundamentalist Protestant churches."

    Lavishly funded political front groups…. do tell :).

  • 272. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Chris in Lathrop-"Bring it on"
    Yeah man, Bring it ON!

  • 273. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:11 am

    This just in via email from NOM!
    NOM's reaction on the ruling!

  • 274. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:12 am

    @Fiona …
    "repeal the Fourteenth Admendment"? Ok, in all the wonderful hullabaloo about Walker's judgement (and a fascinating read so far, let me tell you), did I miss something?

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 275. Captain America  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Sorry Mark, that's just one of my Super Powers! I need them all, being married to fiona64!

  • 276. TPAKyle  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:16 am

    But hey, they still have that snappy bus!

    Where is the next stop? WTF cares!

  • 277. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:18 am

    UPDATE: Nothing really important, just dutifully reporting everything that's going on the docket.

    Imperial County joins Proponents in Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Motion to shorten time (Docs 705 and 706) http://www.scribd.com/doc/35379256/Doc-711

    Don't know if Imperial County doesn't know their motion to intervene has been denied, or if they're still hoping that they can appeal and win on the motion. They are NOT, as of now, an official Defendant-Intervenor.

  • 278. Brenton Clark  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:19 am

    What I'd like to find out is whether Judge Walker decided that the issue of equal protection was due special scrutiny or only rational basis testing. I can see that he ruled there was no rational basis for the law, but if he had decided otherwise would the decision have been very different?

  • 279. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Ayup. Suspect classification/strict scrutiny applies. We got everything we asked for in a 136 page well written opinion by a Republican judge who was once considered too anti-gay to be given the bench.

  • 280. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:20 am

    My husband and I will have the chicken please :-)

  • 281. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:21 am

    @l8r — well put.

  • 282. Seraphiel  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:23 am

    “Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

    “Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

    Mr. Brown, I have the dustbin of history on line 2 for you. It says you're late for your appointment.

  • 283. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:25 am

    He ruled that strict scrutiny applies (g&l's a suspect class), but he also said it wouldn't have passed under even rational basis.

    Not sure what you mean by the question "if he had decided otherwise would the decision have been very different?"

  • 284. Michael  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:26 am

    The militant anti-gay pressure group NOM keeps spewing the same nonsense: that they have the special right to use Big Government to impose their "religious beliefs" on everyone else. They are wrong. All men are created equal. They do not have the right to vote away the rights of other Americans. Congratulations to all Americans, including the 48% of Californians who voted against the evil Prop. 8!!!! This is a victory for America and our Constitution and against bigotry and exclusion.

  • 285. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Remember that REALLY BIG WIN I was almost afraid to hope for? We GOT IT!!! This is broad, g&l are suspect class, the whole shebang. I'm giddy right now.

  • 286. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:28 am

    The judge issued a separate stay of his order. The initial stay is temporary until there is a decision made on defendant-intervenor's motion to stay pending appeal.

  • 287. Judy  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:28 am

    If it makes you feel any better, the Marriot Hotel and Marina valets hit my car two weeks ago. >_< And a lot of the employees were really snippy. Yeah, I know it's super crowded, but I just spent a grand at your hotel.

  • 288. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

    I had to suppress my hopes this morning just in case it went the other way. Once it came out, all I could do was do a Paul Revere, run around to all of the buildings (we have a lot of scattered buildings that were once army barracks), and announce it to everyone at work.

  • 289. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

    He's just catching up on all of the old business at once, isn't he?

    Oh, how I wish I were a clerk/extern for Judge Walker. To have been involved in the deciding of this case would have been a dream.

  • 290. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Oh my god, this is so huge!

  • 291. Joe  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:32 am

    “Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

    That would explain the "It is just because it is" approach they gave when defending Prop 8! "Your honor, my client is innocent… just because he is innocent!"

  • 292. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Brian better hold on to that bus…once NOM folds he just may have to live in it
    LOL

    SNARK!!!

  • 293. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:34 am

    JonT – I thought you said you read every document I post in my Scribd account. :)

  • 294. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I'm about halfway through the decision (and man, does Blankenhorn ever take it up the ### from the judge in the ruling!), and I'm very curious what the appeal process for this is going to look like., re: what questions of law the proponents will argue (my guess- the Due Process and Equal Protections clause, as well as a populace's "right to vote" that NOM seems to be banking on).

  • 295. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:35 am

    oh well I think we'll never know because as we all have seen they are too afraid to allow comments on their site, aren't they?

  • 296. Christian  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I want to thank all the folks at the Courage Campaign and this site for their efforts. I was coming to this site multiple times per day back in January as the court proceedings occurred. It was nice to be able to read what was going on. This is a great decision, though it will take time for its effects to reach me in Texas. However, I look forward to when that time comes. Thank you again.

  • 297. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

    You know, I read most of the opinion and skimmed the rest of it. I'm pretty sure that Judge Walker held that there is a federal constitutional right to marriage. Not that there was a federal constitutional right to gay marriage. He held that because it was a fundamental right, it couldn't be denied just because both partners are of the same gender. Like others have said on this blog, the same-sex couples get the same exact license and nowhere on the license does it say "Gay Marriage License" — it just says "Marriage License."

  • 298. Daria  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Thank God!…This time they (the fear and loathers) can tuck their dogmatic tails between their legs and march back to headquarters to try to come up with plan B. God forbid we should ALL live happily ever after! WE can't back down or be complacent now. But we can celebrate while the haters regroup.
    Congrats to all, Judge Walker has secured his place in history!

  • 299. Jim  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:37 am

    I am so so happy! This is a great day and hopefully the fundamental right of marriage can be realised by loving peeps acros the United States – make that the whole world!! Walker has done a great job in writing this decision. Let's get the stay over with so that those of us that are not married can tie that rainbow knot. Tears of joy in the office are a rare occurrence. Let's enjoy this historic moment. Love and hugs to all. ~W~

  • 300. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Next stop for the NOM bus: Wrong-Side-of-Historyville. BB better pray they have gas stations out there.

    On the bright side, it'll be the first time in this whole little fiasco that he'll be around lots of people who agree with him.

  • 301. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:37 am

    We may not have needed him, but I still like his quote about how "we will be more American…" wait… He meant TODAY!!!!

    HAPPY MORE-AMERICAN-THAN-YESTERDAY DAY!!!

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 302. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:38 am

    NIce story off of Yahoo News
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_re_us/u

  • 303. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Yup yup — another here.

  • 304. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Yay! thanks for all you do SB Mom :)

  • 305. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Hope stay will be SHORT!

  • 306. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I just had a little too much wine celebrating all of this so I'm going to do it tomorrow. but I'm so happy right now. I'm reading you comments and it fills me up with warmth and I care about all of you and I'm just so happy! so happy.

  • 307. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Yep. This is the stuff that brought us to law school, isn't it? I'll just have to be content to be alive when history was made.

    As an aside, I was in law school when the Hawaii State Supreme Court made their decision back in '93, only to have it shot down through an amendment to their constitution. It's been a long time comin'.

  • 308. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Tears …thanks Bob

  • 309. Chris  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:43 am

    "Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side."

    And on that topic, an excerpt from the classic poem "Casey at the Bat":

    "And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
    And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
    Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped.
    "That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one," the umpire said.

    With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone;
    He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
    He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
    But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, 'Strike two.'"

    I don't imagine there is a whole lot of joy in Mudville right now.

  • 310. Seraphiel  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8.

    He just gets burned up by the idea that equality is spreading. Maybe he's just running out of excuses to stay in the closet…

  • 311. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Celebration in Salt Lake City UT tonight :)

    Hi Everybody!

    I wanted to give everyone a heads up in case you haven't heard the news yet. Last night, the California court announced that Judge Walker's decision on the fate of Prop 8 will be released this afternoon. I've planned a rally at the Capitol building tonight at 8pm, either in protest or in celebration. If you would like to attend and/or notify your followers I'd appreciate it!

    Here's our FB event page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=10810133257

    Much love to you all!

    Sincerely;
    Eric Ethington
    801.427.3397
    ethingtoneric@hotmail.com
    PRIDEinUtah.com

  • 312. Mandy  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:47 am

    ugh the comments turn my stomach. Just got to remember most yahoo commenters are trolls

  • 313. RebeccaRGB  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Justice has been served.

    Hey Louis! Hey Brian! Hey Maggie!
    You just got SERVED!!! :D

  • 314. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:48 am

    anyone ever doubted this? he so blankenhorned this case :D

  • 315. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:50 am

    And one more here. Well, I already cried, since I work from home.

    And — here are my brother and BIL on the NY Times home page: http://www.nytimes.com/

  • 316. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I can only second and third these posts!

  • 317. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:51 am

    For anyone who missed it, he placed a temporary stay until he can make a decision on whether to stay the ruling pending appeal.

  • 318. Chris in Lathrop  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:53 am

    "Faithfully,

    Brian S. Brown"

    Didn't realize Brian's initials were "BS". BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

  • 319. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:54 am

    oh honeys, here is me – currently living in a country where homosexuality isn't ounishable but thats about all and I am so happy for this ruling becaus it's just one step closer to global acceptance and equality!

  • 320. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

    if only they would allow comments on their site….

  • 321. eDee  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I'm confused –
    This quote: "UPDATE (3:22 PST): NOM just blasted out this e-mail: Dear Marriage Supporter,"

    Is this a joke and I'm not getting it?
    We HERE are marriage supporters, NOM doesn't support marriage.

    What am I missing?

  • 322. Steffi  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:59 am

    some of them who don't celebrate are not haters. some of them are just seriously missinformed and afraid of sth. they don't really understand

  • 323. Todd  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:00 am

    And fourth. I think I'll be heading to Castro Street too…

    Love,
    Todd

  • 324. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

    I rarely rwad the comments….people will say the most horrible things when allowed to do so in complete anonymity

  • 325. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

    From a straight ally here in Canada…. you guys (guys is a generic term incorporating the masculine and the feminine) head out and celebrate!

    Party on.

  • 326. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am

    LOVE IT!!!

  • 327. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:03 am

    I left the office for a while to swim laps — partially because I was going nutso staring at this computer.

    I was in the pool when the decision was announced. It was an outdoor pool, and I was doing backstroke at the time. I made sure to pay very close attention to the sky.

    Guess what.

    It wasn't showing ANY sign of falling. =)

    I can't even express how thrilled I am with Judge Walker's decision.

    When I got back to work, I had a voice-mail from my Mom. She told me about the decision (as if there was any way in Hades I didn't know) — and was cheering. It's nice to hear a 72-year-old straight woman cheer for marriage equality.

  • 328. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:03 am

    They don't consider what bwe have and what we wat to be 'true' marriage…so they see themselves as the only 'true' supporters of marriage

  • 329. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to avoid the comments. I don't want anything to spoil this fabulous mood I'm in!

  • 330. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:08 am

    53-yr old straight woman cheering, here. So are my 80-something parents.

  • 331. dtwirling  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:10 am

    No closed doors here. My entire office teared and cheered.. A happy day, indeed!

  • 332. eDee  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Yeah, that's why I thought.
    Guess I wasn't missing the joke – they are the joke!

  • 333. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am

    LOL! Ha Ha Ha!

  • 334. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Yep, they (right wing whackjobs) are trying to repeal the 14th Amendment — so that US-born children of immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not automatically granted citizenship. I wish I were making this up.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/jon-kyl-

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 335. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Ok, finally done with the ruling.

    And here’s the nail in the coffin to the NOM’s “People should have the right to vote on marriage” meme, from the ruling:

    "The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571.

    The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.”

    Game, set, equality.

  • 336. Up&Adam  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Dearest Kathleen, you can't imagine how many times I have read your posts aloud to my housemate and/or visiting family & friends. You made sharing legal jargon fun & coherent these many months so I am extremely grateful. I'm sharing your giddiness as a proud member of a suspect class & embracing you and all the other frequent and not so frequent posters on this incredible site.

  • 337. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Don't know where I had time to read this today, but didn't Alex Rodriguez hit his 600th home run today. In the dept of OT trivia, there was joy… alas, again not in Mudville.

  • 338. Adam  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Dear Mormans,

    Perhaps you should have stuck to trying to work your way to heaven. As for all that money spent for nothing, ha ha ha ha ha! Maybe that carpet bagger Maggie Ghallagher will give some of it back! I don't think so. When you made that contribution, I bet Maggie was saying, "Gee, this is like taking money from a bigot!"

  • 339. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:31 am

    The stay is in effect until he rules on the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (not just until he receives plaintiffs' response). He's given all parties until Aug 6 to respond to that motion. I suspect he'll make his decision on the Motion soon after that. Of course, if the ruling goes against them, I'm sure Proponents will make the same request to the 9th Circuit.

  • 340. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:32 am

    DRAT – I saw my italics tag error right after clicking Submit. I only meant to emphasize the word "rules"

  • 341. nightshayde  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

    41-year-old straight woman cheering here, by the way.

  • 342. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Church of LDS official response to the ruling is here:
    http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-rele

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 343. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Thanks Up&Adam, but I'm afraid I may have jumped the gun on the announcement of the really big win. I hadn't read the entire opinion, and based on the statements of a couple of other attorneys who had, leaped to the conclusion that g&ls had been determined to be a suspect class. But reading the decision more carefully, it seems that this isn't the case.

    He does use strict scrutiny in part of the decision, under the analysis for Due Process, but does so because he holds that marriage is a fundamental right.

    In the part of the decision where this analysis would be about suspect class (the Equal Protection argument), Walker says, basically, that IF he had to make that decision, he would say g&l are, but that he needn't make that decision because the law fails even the rational basis test.

    This is not to minimize the importance or impact of the decision. It's just not quite what I originally thought it was.

    And I'm glad I made the whole process a bit more comprehensible.

  • 344. Breaking the Silence  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:50 am

    "…this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts…"

    Sorry LDS, but I wouldn't call your side getting absolutely crushed in trial a great indicator of "vigorous debate."

  • 345. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I do, at least, appreciate their calls for civility on all sides.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 346. Another Bryan  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I'm so happy for all of you who have fiances/girlfriends/boyfriends… here's hoping that you'll be spouses soon!

    To echo Kathleen: this is what the Big Win feels like… that jubliation you're feeling? That's called equality :-)

  • 347. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

    My favorite part of the page is that they offer a style guide. :)

  • 348. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Greg, I often think of you. I am SOOO happy today. Have a great celebration tonight!

  • 349. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:03 am

    I have to clarify that, having read the decision, and not just relied on others' interpretation, this is not what I was calling the REALLY big win – but it is definitely what I was calling the the BIG WIN. – not narrowly drawn, doesn't rely only on the fact that some ss couples are married while others are not. It just says plain and simple this is discrimination of the kind that our country does not allow. (weeping here…)

  • 350. JerBear  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:05 am

    And i thought National legalization of Gay marriage would happen at least 10-20 years from now. But with the Massachusetts decision and this decision, It seems like just a couple of years before we can all tie the knot (and did i mention tax deductions? =]).

    Faithfully,
    Jeremy Adams <3

  • 351. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:08 am

    @Breaking the Silence

    “…this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts…”

    A little late for vigorous debate now, since your "we don't need to present evidence" side spent the entire trial with the mute button on.

  • 352. Breaking the Silence  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Good point, Fiona. Not much good in being overly aggressive about things… I'd like to modify my comment to: "Debate, perhaps. However there was not, is not, and will not be, substance to the argument for inequality." :)

  • 353. Juanca  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:15 am

    HELL YEAH!!!! At least we can post our celebratory comments on this site… the http://www.protectmarriage.com site has blocked all comments and pings on their site regarding this decision- LOL!

  • 354. Breaking the Silence  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Yes, Sagesse. We will likely see how far the "we don't need no stinkin' evidence" rationale flies in appellate court. :)

  • 355. Gregory in SLC  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Thank you fiona64 for LDS link :)

  • 356. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Thanks, Steffi. You are definitely mispocah!

  • 357. Shirley Clukey  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:24 am

    HALLELUJAH!

  • 358. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:26 am

    It makes me very happy to hear this about your neighbors.

  • 359. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:27 am

    @Kathleen: 'JonT – I thought you said you read every document I post in my Scribd account..

    I do!!! It just took me a few hundred comments to find it :)

  • 360. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Anonygrl, I think that qualifies as the ULTIMATE FAIL!!! This is the fail that has no recovery left.

  • 361. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Who will defend it now?
    Same people who have been all along. Imperial County asked to intervene quite a while ago. Can't remember exactly when, but early in the proceedings. Walker is just now ruling on the request.

  • 362. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

    'Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8.'

    Wow, they love that hyperbole don't they. Why not something like:

    While stomping on small children, kittens, and puppies, and at the same time urinating on the crucifix, homo-activist "Judge" Walker burned the Constitution and has ordered that everyone become a gay satan worshiper.'

    (rolling eyes).

    Will be interesting to see how the rest of the nomo tour plays out (giggle).

  • 363. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:41 am

    And forgive my bolding tag error. I meant to highlight only the quote I made up. Sigh,

  • 364. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Actually, Owen, I see your sarcasm. It was not lost due to an incompetent counsel. It was lost because their legal team had nothing to work with that would stand any type of legal, constitutional scrutiny. Too bad that the NOMbies don't know enough about civics and the legal system to realize that.

  • 365. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:51 am

    So wonderful to see Ireland joining us. Thank you, Helen!!

  • 366. Caitlin  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Now, now- then they'd get bombarded by people using logic. Eugh!

  • 367. Caitlin  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:04 am

    B-but they're supposed to be right becuase they're representing the people's voice! As the children in their horrible commercials of 08 would say, I'm confused!

  • 368. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Richard,

    Owen was recalling Maggie's comment about the DOJ defense of DOMA. A little irony.

  • 369. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:34 am

    So, you are saying that Captain America is my BIL!?! That is GREAT NEWS! I only wish you two and everyone else here on P8TT could be at our DC LEGAL wedding and our NC chasunah. Hopefully we will be able to find a videographer for each one and be able to post not only stills but also video of each ceremony where you will get to see.

  • 370. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Yes, I've seen the language, but I don't think this carries any weight (or at least very little) in terms of establishing law. This is likely as close as we've ever seen a federal decision skirt up to the issue, but Walker did not do thorough analysis on why g&ls are a suspect class, nor did he rely on this to reach his conclusion in the equal protection section. I think this qualifies as "dicta" http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=5

  • 371. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Also, IANAL but I seem to remember someone stating that in 18 SCOTUS casses since 1888, marriage has been ruled to be a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. So, where is Brainless getting his history lessons–the Texas Board of Education that is currently in office, or was he homeschooled by someone who was unable to buy any textbooks or references and hired someone to take BB's placement and graduation exams for him?

  • 372. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Alicia, so glad to see you here. It's a joyous day.

  • 373. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    HEY Guys/Gals……I just got home from the celebration in NYC….I'll upload my photos to Facebook 2morro & post the link on here….I'm still bouncing off the wall….Guess what? I got to meet Gary & Tony & their adorable baby boy Nicholas…They are a beautiful family….I'm exhausted…anywho….. I dedicate this video to "All the Lovers"…….I LOVE ALL OF YOU……<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zixQYDeRtzI

  • 374. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    & it would have helped if I checked the notify box yeah?

    lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 375. Victoria  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    In order…my response:

    1. Gasp.
    2. Tears.
    3. Hugs.
    4. First thought: I finally need to start saving for her ring. :)
    5. Second thought: PARTY!!!!!
    6. Actually party.
    ;)

    What a beautiful day this has been.

  • 376. Jezzles  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Well said!! :D

    I don't know that I could, in good conscience, get married until I'm satisfied that homosexuals have the exact same rights. Unless I'm surprised with a nice homosexual of my own, in which case I can't get married anyway. What a country!!

    I'm optimistic for the future though. I keep old newspaper articles so I can show future generations how stupid people were in my day. Since I live in Utah, it will not be hard.

  • 377. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Welcome to the family, Helen! BTW, that is my mother-in-law's name–Helen. And she is supportive of us also. I don't know which news today pleased her more–Judge Walker's decision or my imminent job interview.

  • 378. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    You're right. My goof. I actually had forgotten MG's comment on that decision.

  • 379. Breaking the Silence  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Thank you, Mark M.! Glad to finally speak up.

  • 380. Gregory in SLC  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Would love to have a post where we can post info/photos about all our cities celebrations. About 300 people marched from Utah State Capital down and around the Mormon temple. It was Lovely :) Words don't do justice. Happy night to all!!!

  • 381. Gregory in SLC  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    p.s. a poll in conservative Utah done by Fox news shows that 60% of Utahans approved of the court decision :) Just amazing!!!

  • 382. Mike  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    How do we know this?

  • 383. Breaking News: California&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    [...] the Judge in his ruling conclusion: Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial [...]

  • 384. Maria Lima » Blog A&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    [...] a frustrating week of fighting with the Marriott Hotel and Marina about an overcharge of $796.58, this news made me squeal with [...]

  • 385. Prop 8 es declarado incon&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    [...] Más reacciones al rato. Información técnica aquí. [...]

  • 386. JC  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    My new favorite quote from the testimony:
    “The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved
    the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s
    opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that
    Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony
    that should be given essentially no weight.” Ya think?

  • 387. Ann S.  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    08/04/2010 710 ORDER granting 706 Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010) (Entered: 08/04/2010)

    English translation: Response to motion for stay due by 5:00 Friday. Entry of judgment is stayed until the Judge decides on the motion for stay. So no one can get married just yet…

  • 388. Dave P.  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    This is wonderful! I’m at work now, but I’ll be leving the office at 3 PM and heading into SF for the celebrations. Wearing my Harvey Milk T-Shirt so look for me, I’ll be watching for some of you. It’s odd that even as I’ll be in the midst of a huge celebration in the middle of the Castro, I’ll be missing those of you who arent; there with me. But as I have been doing almost non-stop for months now, I’ll be thinking of all of you. Your words of encouragement, frustration, support, humor, wisdom, and true friendship. These are great days we are living in. Talk to you guys tomorrow. Love you all.

  • 389. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    But also lets get this done pretty quickly so we can decide whether a longer stay is appropriate or not, isn’t that correct? So we could be looking at days, instead of years?

  • 390. Dwight  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    What is really funny, I am near tears… and I am not even gay ( chuckle )

  • 391. Katherine  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina both came out AGAINST gay marriage today. Remember that when you go to the election booths this year. Vote for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer who both came out in favor of today's decision.

  • 392. MY LIFE » Blog Arch&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    [...] cannot begin to express my joy at hearing Judge Walker has declared Prop 8 is unconstitutional! CONCLUSION Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians [...]

  • 393. Dpeck  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Yes! remember that Jerry Brown helped us in some very important ways. First, when the Yes on 8 crowd wanted to use watered-down and misleading wording on the California ballot in 2008 about how Prop 8 would be "protecting marriage yadda yadda" he stepped in and he was responsible for the fact that it said prop 8 "ELIMINATES RIGHTS OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY". Then, at the start of this trial, he refused to defent Prop 8, which is really rather unusual and ballsy. He has ALWAYS been fighting for us and we all need to vote for him so he can continue fighting for us.

  • 394. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    [...] BREAKING: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional by Adam Bink I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is [...] [...]

  • 395. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Nice to see you here, Happy. I hope you come back and join in the fun.

  • 396. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Do you have your photos posted anywhere? I'd LOVE to see them.

  • 397. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    He did more than refuse to defend it. He actually declared that he agreed that it was unconstitutional!

  • 398. A Great Day for The USA &&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    [...] about striking down PropH8 [...]

  • 399. Marriage Discrimination R&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    [...] Adam Bink at Proposition Eight Trial Tracker I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is [...]

  • 400. What is equality, and whe&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    [...] airtight. Let’s hope the appellate courts agree. Lots of info in this post and at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker in [...]

  • 401. Tom B.  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    I'll join in the chorus of "Good God, man!" :)

  • 402. Tom B.  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Basically, he said we were. :)

  • 403. NotDeceived  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:19 am

    lovely ain't it… We might as well flush the "We the people" part down the toilet and write in "I the judge". Go to hell perverts…. and don't worry, the 7 million voters that had their voices silenced by this will surely remember that in November, and so will I.

  • 404. Quick hit: Prop 8 ruled u&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:40 am

    [...] Vaughn Walker, Chief Judge of the Northern California U.S. District Court, ruled  CA Prop 8 unconstitutional on Due Process and Equal Protection grounds.  You can read the full ruling here (scribd online) or [...]

  • 405. Breaking the Silence  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:53 am

    "We the people, in order to discriminate and grant basic rights in a biased fashion upon the people of the United States that are not like us…" That's not what it says.

    No intent to slam the democratic process, but regarding that 7 million number that Maggie, Brian and yourself are so fond of citing; you might bear in mind that that 7 million represents 53% of the people who cast a vote at that time. Assuming my math isn't as bad as it might be, that leaves about 6,207,547 voting Californians who's will or "voices" were not heeded at that point in time. Surveys since have indicated positive (for us, not you, sorry) changes in the mindset of Californians. Also, we do not live in a strict democracy, we live in a republic which serves to protect us from strict majority rule.

    Kudos for expressing yourself clearly and honestly, though.

  • 406. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Thanks for helping to prove the "animus" part for us.

  • 407. anneisthenewblack  |  August 5, 2010 at 5:21 am

    thanks for the informative information!! and a "woohoo" for a step in the right direction…#proudtobegay

  • 408. Ronnie  |  August 5, 2010 at 6:17 am

    NotDecieved (which is oxyMORON of a sn) You're the un-American, non-human, Fascist pervert….If you don't like that this country is finally moving in the right direction to actually abiding by WE THE PEOPLE (because LGBT people are the people also. The Constitution doesn't just protect heterosexual anti-gay detritus like you only) then you can move. Leave..GO AWAY!…I hear Uganda is beautiful.

    <3…Ronnie

  • 409. Twitter Updates for 2010-&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:05 am

    [...] Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional! http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04/breaking-prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional/ [...]

  • 410. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Also, since NOM and its allies are so fond of saying that "the majority of Californians" approved Prop H8, let us also remind them that 7 million is not a majority of Californians, it is only a majority of those who turned out to vote. If we are to be totally honest, we must first determine the following things:
    1) Total population of California
    2) Total number of Californians eligible to vote
    3) Total number of Californians REGISTERED to vote
    4) Total number of voters who turned out, based on total number of ballots cast for the total ticket, not just for Prop H8.

    Once we determine that, we will know how many voters who turned out did not vote on Prop H8 one way or the other, and that will give us a better indication of what the actual percentages were based on the full picture.

    I am quite sure that there were a lot of voters who voted in the presidential, congressional, and legislative races who did not vote either way on Prop H8. And the last time I checked, with a total population of 37 million (give or take a few hundred), it would take around 19 million votes to create a true majority of voters on either side of an issue. So NOM is being VERY misleading when they claim that 7 million is a majority of Californians, rather than a majority of the voters who turned out and voted on this issue.

  • 411. A morning cuppa Prop 8 &l&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:16 am

    [...] and #3 for “Prop 8″!), I’ve got a roundup for you. We’ve got my initial announcement along with key graphs from the decision, early head-exploding reaction from NOM, and live-blogging [...]

  • 412. Antonio Maurice Dani  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

    This decision silences the will of the majority. One unelected judge was able to impose his personal views and lifestyle on the people of California, trampling the will of the majority in California embodied in Proposition 8. This is a sad moment in American democracy. The Left always attempts to get unelected and activist judges to legislate from the bench what they do not have the votes for outside of the courts. http://revolutionarypaideia.wordpress.com

  • 413. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Well, bless your heart, too.

  • 414. Breaking the Silence  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Antonio, please see posts #406-409, above which address your concern regarding the "will of the majority." Also, it would be great if you could supply something of tangible evidentary value in support of your assertion that an judge was able to impose his personal views and lifestyle on the people of California. For example; documented cases of individuals forced to marry against their will, or couples that broke-up or elected to break plans to get married due to this decision or SSM, generally. The will of deities or the fact that some people find SSM and LGBT persons yucky does not count.

  • 415. Breaking the Silence  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    *a* judge.

  • 416. Breaking the Silence  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Actually… If anyone did break-off their marriage or plans to marry due to SSM, it would not represent SSM as a valid cause. It would represent their own irrationality. …Don't want to create false-associations here. Regardless, it does not appear to happen.

  • 417. Ann S.  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    You know that Judge Walker was nominated by Pres. George H. W. Bush, right?

  • 418. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Well, bless your heart, you must have skipped your civics class in junior high school, or you would have realized that Judge Walker was doing his job. He looked over the evidence presented and found that this law was unconstitutional because the majority (which I still wonder how you can call 7 million out of 37 million a majority, but that is another topic) was attempting to tyrannize the minority and enforce a personal moral code into the civil law. There is a separation of church and state here, which means that while you can stand on any street corner and spout anything you want to based on your religion, that your religion has no place in the secular law. Even Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef upheld this when he said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G-d what is G-d's. This means that even he supported a separation of church and state. This is after all a constitutional republic, which means that when the majority attempts to enact laws that oppress the minority, the judicial system is in place to counteract that. It is part of the system of checks and balances put in place almost 300 years ago by our founding fathers. Going by your name, I would asy that you are of mixed ancestral heritage. Had it not been for "activist"judges in 1967, your parents might have gone to jail for being married, or for even going out on a date together, and you yourself would not be here. So why don't you go back to school and study what our constitution and our declaration of independence are really all about, and while you are at it, take some civics courses and some courses in constitutional law. YOu might also want to remember this–when you enact a law that places the government square in your neighbor's bedroom (such as Prop 8), the next target for someone else is to put the government in YOUR bedroom.

  • 419. A heap of broadly politic&hellip  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    [...] Prop 8 has gotten a federal smackdown. All together now: FINALLY. Of course, there are a couple more appeals to go…. [...]

  • 420. How to dismantle conserva&hellip  |  August 9, 2010 at 7:54 am

    [...] and the stupidity of that term. Olson echoes a point I made when the ruling came down. I wrote in response to NOM’s e-mail blast: Of course, it’s only judicial “arrogance” or [...]

  • 421. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eJHbq1WMcE

  • 422. Quora&hellip  |  September 16, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Is Slide’s purchase by Google for $182MM considered a success?…

    BI is saying it was $228MM: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04/breaking-prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional/…

  • 423. BREAKING: Prop 8 ruled un&hellip  |  December 26, 2010 at 8:02 am

    [...] From August 4th, 2010. Original here. [...]

  • 424. California’s Propos&hellip  |  June 28, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    [...] I fully expected, and if you followed the transcripts you will know what I mean, California’s proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional via Prop 8 Trial Tracker (full decision)! Judge Vaugh Walker dropped the big metal hammer of [...]

  • 425. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  August 4, 2011 at 6:23 am

    [...] It was a remarkable day for the LGBT and allied community — a day on which many were holding their breath, waiting to see if the arc of history, in the words of Dr. King, would indeed bend towards justice. A date that changed history. The original blog post and ruling from August 4th last year (with 423 comments) can be found here. [...]

  • 426. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    [...] in prohibiting or allowing marriage equality in California.  On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruledin favor of the plaintiffs, striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and [...]

  • 427. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  February 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    [...] constitutionality of Prop 8.  In his August 4, 2010, decision, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the [...]

  • 428. What to Know About Today&hellip  |  February 7, 2012 at 7:27 am

    [...] constitutionality of Prop 8.  In his August 4, 2010, decision, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the [...]

  • 429. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  February 7, 2012 at 10:28 am

    [...] August 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. [...]

  • 430. Prop 8 again ruled uncons&hellip  |  February 7, 2012 at 11:49 am

    [...] a landmark ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld the lower court ruling by Vaughn Walker that the voter initiative to deny same sex couples in California the right to marry violates the [...]

  • 431. Ninth Circuit declares Ca&hellip  |  February 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    [...] August 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the [...]

  • 432. cold call method  |  January 14, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    Hello! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the superb work!

  • 433. ___  |  May 15, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on
    the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking
    about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos
    to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

  • 434. Equality On Trial »&hellip  |  June 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    [...] fact, this argument isn’t even new to the Prop 8 case itself.  In his 2010 ruling invalidating Proposition 8, district court judge Vaughn Walker addressed the plaintiffs claims [...]

  • 435. Une Promesse Telecharger gratuit  |  February 8, 2014 at 4:26 am

    Remarkable! Its really amazing post, I have got much clear idea about from this piece
    of writing.

    Also visit my web-site: Une Promesse Telecharger gratuit

  • 436. http://www.warriorforum.com/  |  March 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm

    What’s Going down i’m new to this, I stumbled
    upon this I have found It absolutely useful and it has aided me out loads.
    I’m hoping to contribute & assist other customers like its aided me.
    Great job.

  • 437. Kristofer  |  March 20, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It
    absolutely useful and it has aided me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & help other customers like its
    aided me. Good job.

  • 438. keyword phrases  |  April 9, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers?
    I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve
    worked hard on. Any tips?

  • 439. buy ammo online  |  April 16, 2014 at 1:08 am

    Really no matter if someone doesn’t be aware of afterward its up tto other viewers that they
    will assist, so here it takes place.

    My web page – buy ammo online

  • 440. Watch Barcelona Real Madrid Live here  |  April 16, 2014 at 10:36 am

    This website was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something
    that helped me. Thank you!

  • 441. cougar dating site commercial  |  April 16, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    I’ve been browsing online more than 2 hours today, yet
    I never found any interestng article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me.In mmy opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made good content aas you did, the internet will be much more
    useful than ever before.

    My blog :: cougar dating site commercial

  • 442. .223 ammo for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Thiis is a really good tip especially to those fresh to
    the blogosphere. Simple but very accurate information_ Many thanks for sharing this one.
    A must read post!

    my web site: .223 ammo for sale

  • 443. sugar daddy dating  |  April 17, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Greetings, I do think your web site could possibly be having
    web browser compatibility issues. When I look at youjr site in Safari,
    it looks fine however when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping issues.

    I merely wanted to give you a quick heads up! Aside from that,
    excellent blog!

    Here is my webpage … sugar daddy dating

  • 444. bullets for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    hello!,I love your writing very a lot! share we communicate more about
    your article on AOL? I require an expert on this area to resolve my problem.
    May be that’s you! Takingg a look ahead to see you.

    my site: bullets for sale

  • 445. bullets for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    Thanks , I have just been searching for info approximately this subject
    for a while and yours is thee greatest I’ve found out till
    now. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you sure about the supply?

    My site; bullets for sale

  • 446. http://babysittingtelechargerfilmcomplet.blogspot.ro/  |  April 24, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be really something which I think I would never understand.
    It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me. I’m looking
    forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

    Here is my blog post – Babysitting Film Complet (http://babysittingtelechargerfilmcomplet.blogspot.ro/)

  • 447. Tammy Bailey  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    Since the admin of this site is working, no question very rapidly
    it will be well-known, due to its quality contents.

    Here is my blog: Tammy Bailey

  • 448. Aaron Griffin  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    Remarkable things here. I’m very satisfied to see your article.
    Thanks so much and I’m having a look forward to
    touch you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?

    Feel free to surf to my blog – Aaron Griffin

  • 449. Brendan  |  April 28, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Thanks for finally talking about > Equality On TrialBREAKING: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional Equality On Trial < Loved it!

    Here is my blog … Paddy oBrian (Brendan)

  • 450. semifinales champions 2014  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Fine way of explaining, and good post to obtain information concerning my
    presentation subject matter, which i am going to convey in institution of
    higher education.

  • 451. semifinal champions 2014  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    What i don’t understood is actually how you are now not actually
    much more smartly-favored than you may be right now.
    You’re so intelligent. You know therefore considerably in terms of this subject, produced me
    for my part imagine it from numerous numerous angles. Its like women and men are not fascinated unless it is one thing to do with Girl gaga!
    Your personal stuffs nice. Always maintain it up!

  • 452. John Torres  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention
    that I’ve really loved surfing around your weblog posts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing in your feed and I hope you
    write once more very soon!

    Also visit my site … John Torres

  • 453. Anonymous  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    It’s truly very difficult in this full of activity life to listen news on Television,
    therefore I simply use internet for that purpose, and
    obtain the newest news.

    Feel free to visit my site :: Paddy o

  • 454. Tracy  |  April 29, 2014 at 11:36 am

    great points altogether, you just received a brand new reader.
    What would you recommend about your post that you just made some days
    in the past? Any positive?

    Also visit my weblog: Yolanda Walters (Tracy)

  • 455. Keith Ward  |  April 30, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Hello, its fastidious post about media print, we
    all know media is a wonderful source of facts.

    Take a look at my web site; Keith Ward

  • 456. Wilbur Brock  |  April 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I always spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s articles or reviews everyday along
    with a mug of coffee.

    Check out my weblog: Wilbur Brock

  • 457. Johnny Morgan  |  April 30, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the finest blogs on
    the net. I most certainly will highly recommend this web site!

    Also visit my page: Johnny Morgan

  • 458. Jim Barrett  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your
    site and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact enjoyed account your blog posts.
    Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I
    achievement you access consistently quickly.

    Also visit my web blog … Jim Barrett

  • 459. Joseph Hernandez  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    It’s going to be finish of mine day, but before finish I am reading this enormous post to improve my know-how.

    Take a look at my web page … Joseph Hernandez

  • 460. Anonymous  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    This is my first time pay a quick visit at here and i am truly pleassant to read everthing at one place.

    Feel free to visit my blog Paddy o

  • 461. Anonymous  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    If some one desires to be updated with latest technologies
    after that he must be pay a visit this website and
    be up to date all the time.

    Here is my webpage Paddy o

  • 462. seo book rank checker inaccurate  |  May 3, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    It’s enormous that you are getting ideas from this article as well as from our dialogue made
    at this place.

  • 463. ammo for sale online  |  May 9, 2014 at 5:55 am

    Very soon this site wll be famous among all blog users, due to it’s good articles

    Here is my website ammo for sale online

  • 464. ammo for sale online  |  May 9, 2014 at 5:58 am

    Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the pictures on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the
    blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

    my website ammo for sale online

  • 465. invest in gold  |  May 10, 2014 at 11:05 am

    What’s up to all, because I am genuinely keen of
    readinng this blog’s post to be updated daily. It contains fastidious material.

    Here is my webpage invest in gold

  • 466. invest in gold  |  May 10, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Thank you a llot for sharing this with all of us youu actually know what you’re talking
    about! Bookmarked.Kindly also discuss with my site
    =). We cold have a link change contract between us

    my blog post invest in gold

  • 467. buy silver  |  May 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    When someone writes an post he/she keeps the thought of a
    user in his/her brain that how a user can understand it.
    So that’s why this plst is amazing. Thanks!

    Look into my web-site buy silver

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!