NOM in Orlando: Another rally, another effort to hide

August 8, 2010

(After the epic #NOMTurnoutFAIL in Atlanta yesterday, where just sixteen (yes, 16) NOM supporters showed up (on a Saturday, to boot) to hear Alveda King, Brian Brown and the rest of the gang speak, NOM and our Trackers jumped on the road for an immediate 7.5-hour drive to Orlando. If you haven’t seen Arisha’s emotional and powerful interview with Alveda on the subject of race, the courts and same-sex marriage, it’s a must-see. Click here to view it. Perhaps in another effort to shut out coverage of the problems they’re having, NOM is holding another rally in a church today. -Adam)

By Arisha Michelle Hatch

Brian Brown and NOM decided to host their rally today inside the New Line Christian Church and guess what – NOMTourTracker.com is not on the welcome list.

Nonetheless, 134 equality activists are lining the sidewalk outside of the church, including the angels from Stand Up Florida and members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The local FOX News and CBS affiliates were allowed in with cameras. We also have a source inside who will be documenting the speeches inside the church and reporting after the rally.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE FROM ADAM (12:18 PST): From Sunshine State News:

NOM is set to gather at First Christian Church in Winter Park; the LGBT group at nearby Orlando Joy Metropolitan Community Church.

“It was absolutely intentional,” said Ellen Johnson, who identified herself as an NOM spokesperson. “We’re in the middle of a 23-city ‘Summer for Marriage, One Man-One Woman Bus Tour.’ We’re coming from Atlanta and our stop in Orlando was planned months ahead, theirs was planned since last Wednesday.

“I can tell you, they’re only doing this to thumb their noses at us and at the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Well, this is Florida, it isn’t California. We have some powerful people in this state who respect our state Constitution and the laws in it,” Johnson said.

[...]

Said NOM’s Johnson, “Believe me, these people aren’t all sweetness and light. They can be very intimidating to the families on our bus. I wish they had stayed far away from us.”

Tell me about it. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in costumes, same-sex families with cute kids, and equality supporters with rainbow umbrellas- absolutely terrifying. At least we know another reason why NOM tries to exclude the Trackers wherever possible.

UPDATE BY ADAM (1:16 PST): Here’s an account from NOM’s blog:

At First Christian Church in Winter Park this afternoon, Brian called on people of faith to stand boldly for marriage, recalling a rich heritage of Christians standing for truth in the public square:

One of the most pernicious lies in this whole campaign is that we should be ashamed of our beliefs. Our opponents do not want to hear the truth that marriage needs one man and one woman. They attempt to silence us in any way they can.

Remember your history. Would there have been a civil rights movement if clergy had not stood in fighting for the rights of the human person? We stand in the same path as Dr. Martin Luther King when we refuse to be shouted down. William Wilberforce refused to be silenced, and the slave trade was shut down because of his efforts.

At turning points in history, it was people of faith who made the difference. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to stand up for the good. This is our time to stand!

Even if the Supreme Court does not protect marriage, we the people can change the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as between one man and one woman. You are part of a community that represents the majority of Americans all around this great country.

I do think it’s funny Brian talks about speaking up in the public square while holding rallies in churches and refusing to allow media attendance at certain rallies.

UPDATE BY ADAM (1:22 PST): More from NOM’s blog:

“We must stand up for the truth no matter the cost.” That was the message of Concerned Women for America’s Florida State Director Terri Johannessen at the rally in Orlando this afternoon, as she reminded supporters of the significance of this battle. “On Thursday, the will of the people defining marriage was subverted by one judge. . . . This is not a minor change – it is a radical agenda.”

UPDATE BY ARISHA (1:42 PST): 34 sat in church pews to hear Brown’s gospel on Sunday.

Same-sex marriage “is a threat to humanity,” Brown told the small gathering.

I think we can safely assume that Brian is now checking NOMTourTracker.com and/or finally Googled the Courage Campaign. A source inside said he made a specific reference to our interview with Dr. Alveda King. We’re officially part of his spin.

“[Arisha] attempted to trip [King] up,” Brown said after acknowledging NOMTourTracker.com. “It was beautiful to see the love Dr. King exuded. I stood there and watched it. It was powerful.”

Well, actually Brian, you weren’t standing by watching, we have video of you conversing with a group of police officers 100 feet away. It’s ok, but you shouldn’t lie in the Lord’s house, since we know you caught it on YouTube.

Meanwhile, outside, equality organizers called for a moment of silence and were then led in a prayer by an activist named CJ with a “gay Christian” shirt.

Meet the Trackers, Part 3: Arisha Michelle Hatch More from #NOMturnoutFAIL in Atlanta

3936176 Comments2010-08-08+19%3A12%3A31Adam+Bink Leave a Comment

1. Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 8, 2010 at 5:14 am

Next stop: Raleigh, NC!!! Yay!
Felyx is going (I hope!)!
2. Ronnie | August 8, 2010 at 5:17 am

Oh it's still a Fail…I guarantee…it…. > ) ….Ronnie
3. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 5:21 am

Hi, everyone! More emails, please!
4. Sagesse | August 8, 2010 at 5:24 am

This is NOMTourTracker abuse… no, not keeping them out, making them drive 7.5 hours to a non-event. I'm sure the scary marriage equality people are nice, tho.

Subscribing.
5. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 5:25 am

Oooh! I am intrigued by the idea of having a "source on the inside"!

And well done Florida, 154 protesters when they swapped their rally site so recently! Good job!!!

Plus, GREAT COSTUMES! What fun! I am glad to see you are giving NOM EXACTLY the respect they deserve.
6. Sheryl Carver | August 8, 2010 at 5:36 am

I just watched Arisha's interview with Alveda King. Ms. King is a master of not answering questions. She also has no clue about DNA, nor where she would be if the Federal Courts hadn't stepped in. Since she probably is of normal intelligence, one can use her as a perfect example of willful ignorance. As in, don't bother me with the facts; I've already made up my mind.

With folks like Brian Brown & his own granddaughter perverting his message, MLK must be spinning.
7. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 5:37 am

Anybody ever heard of this Ellen Johnson who is claiming to be "an (sic) NOM spokesperson"?
8. l8r_g8r | August 8, 2010 at 5:40 am

Wow, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Talk about a group that NOM should be afraid of!

They spread AIDS education, encourage safe-sex practices, and, as they say "stigmatize guilt" and "promulgate joy for all."

Yup, I'm quivering in my boots.
9. Rick | August 8, 2010 at 5:41 am

"our stop in Orlando was planned months ahead"

Hello?? Months ahead. it was originaly scheduled for Tampa just a few short weeks ago!
10. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 5:43 am

You ROCK to all the Equality Supporters in Orlando!!!
YOU ARE R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-I-N-G!!!!!!!!!!!
They kept trying to pull faint on you but you adjusted and showed up at the right spot. MERCI from France!!!!!!!!

Hey NOM the sunshine of NOMTourTracker is forcing you underground. First it was the steps of the Capitol buildiings, then it was church parking lots, now it is inside the churches. Soon you will be holding your rallies in the basements, like the rats you are. (I bet Ronnie will like this post, it is so Ronniesque) You can run but you can't hide, we are infiltrating you. We will know every threat out of your and your invited speakers dirty pouty mouths. Once you are down in the basements I bet you pull out the white sheets with hoods when you think no one is looking.
11. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 5:43 am

Hello Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence! So glad to see they're there.
12. Chrys | August 8, 2010 at 5:45 am

Wait a minute. Months ahead, they were going to Tampa, right?

Wow. The spin they put on everything…
13. Papa Foma | August 8, 2010 at 5:45 am

Last time I looked out the front door, Raleigh was (still is) LGBT friendly — Tuesday can't come soon enough for Felyx and me! The joint No Nomsense rally should keep up the unbalanced numbers game!
Papa Foma
14. Bonobo | August 8, 2010 at 5:46 am

Actually, holding the rally in a church makes perfect sense to me. It's the only way they can up their numbers. Go somewhere that people are drawn too. Where they have to be. Like schools and churches. I'm not familuir with that church, but they probably have more than 20 members. I mean, after all, even Fred's church has more than 20 members, don't they?

Off topic subject: Does anyone here know where in the BIBLE it says that if your neighbor "sins", YOU don't get to enter the kingdom of heaven? I can't find it.
15. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 5:47 am

this is what the First Christian Church WInter Park Looks like inside. Their website says they can hold 450 ppl but i highly doubt they'd get anywhere near that.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6969508
16. Alan E. | August 8, 2010 at 5:47 am

I am excited for everyone on here who will get to see Brian and Louis up close and personal! I haven't heard the phrase "thumb their noses" in a while.
17. AndrewPDX | August 8, 2010 at 5:50 am

Heh… an 'inside source' with secret recordings… sounds like Watergate all over again, but this time I have to wonder if the codename 'Deep Throat' isn't a bit too applicable, lol

NOMgate, FTW!

Love,
Andrew
18. AndrewPDX | August 8, 2010 at 5:51 am

<cite>I can tell you, they’re only doing this to thumb their noses at us and at the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.</cite>

Really, you think?

Love,
Andrew
19. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 5:52 am

The church NOM is at, First Christian Church in Winter Park, yeah if you go to thier website the minister has an interesting take on Earth Day and the Environment. I was pretty shocked. http://www.firstchristianchurch.com/page-from-the…
20. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 5:54 am

I can't help but laugh! Isn't the purpose of the tour to make them more available to ppl who they are trying to bring into support it? Not hide it so that nobody but ppl who already believe their lies can get to it.
21. Dave in CA | August 8, 2010 at 5:54 am

<

Careful, you're going to get Louis all excited with that kind of talk.
22. Mackenzie | August 8, 2010 at 5:54 am

my favorite is the person holding the love sign. For some reason I just smile and laugh every time I see it!
23. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 5:57 am

The fundies that we deal with at FF4E have been having nervous breakdowns lately as well. Are we witnessing nom imploding?
24. Alan E. | August 8, 2010 at 5:57 am

I laughed so hard when he wrote "miss-information" in the essay. It made me think of a drag queen in a cold war era Bond movie.
25. AndrewPDX | August 8, 2010 at 5:58 am

Yeah, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are awesome!

Love,
Andrew
26. Alan E. | August 8, 2010 at 5:58 am

Ugg the grammar errors. It burns!
27. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:00 am

One can only hope.

Sadly, this sort of evil is like one of those hydras. You cut one head off, two others grow back somewhere else.
28. Ray in MA | August 8, 2010 at 6:00 am

That costume takes a LOT of work and effort … the makeup! … amazing effect!

Hope it scares the bajeezuz out of them!!!
29. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:03 am

Yup Ray I think we are. They are getting more and more shrill and we are all laughing our asses off.
30. Bonobo | August 8, 2010 at 6:03 am

Paul warns the church at Colossae to be on the lookout for those espousing, “Empty and deceitful philosophies.” In fact Paul goes on to say in Colossians 2:8 that we can be cheated by these false prophets if we allow them to corrupt our thinking and channel our energy in a direction that is based on equivocations and untruths.

Interesting article, don't you think? Thanks for the addy.
31. Zachary | August 8, 2010 at 6:05 am

[sub]scribing[/sub]
32. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:11 am

True, true but today we have something we didn't have before. A One Hundred and Thirty Eight page Verdict from a Chief Federal District Judge that says, GLBT people are being discriminated against. We didn't have that last weeek and now we do. When they get to bitching I say, "Tell it to the Judge" LOL!

It may be a hydra but we have sapped a lot of it's energy, it's ability to attract new followers and hang onto the followers they have, because we have been vindicated in a court of law. All the mainstream press we are receiving, it is all good for us. Olson and Boies hitting the mainsteam press, they are convincing. 16 people who show up in the Bible Belt of Atlanta for another #FAILNOM, not so much.
33. Bill | August 8, 2010 at 6:12 am

The religious bigots are really standing on their last legs. Look at this old argument trotted out by our dear old friend Bryan Fischer today. Someone should tell him that ridiculous arguments from 1984 are best left in 1984…

But he doesn't think he's a bigot. Interesting…
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/10080…
34. adambink | August 8, 2010 at 6:19 am

Right.
35. adambink | August 8, 2010 at 6:19 am

Hi all, update posted above with some text of Brown's speech.
36. Victoria | August 8, 2010 at 6:21 am

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for them to pick and choose morality. Between the lies, the purposeful exclusion, the lack of do unto others thing…man…they're gonna have a rough time at heavens gate.
37. Michael | August 8, 2010 at 6:22 am

Taking away the civil rights of law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans is not "all sweetness and light." It's unamerican and unchristian. Militant anti-gay activist Johnson's misleading comments are another example of false prophets trying to turn bad into good and good into bad.
38. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:23 am

And jsut for your edification, i know that "thier" is actually spelled "their. I have a handicapped right hand and so my right hand does nto keep up with my left hand on the keyboard, adn I typically have tons of typos in my posts. They are not straight typos but rather letter reversals. "The" is frequently "teh", etc. Oh and above, "just" comes out almost all the time as jsut. My right hand fingers do not extend across all the keys liek they should so I ahve to type in a very wierd fashion, for example I cannot use the shift key (in order to capitalize) with my right handand type any letter on the left hand side of the keyboard. If I need to capitalize a letter on the left side it is very convoluted how I have to do that. So if you were thinking that I am highly uneducated based on my typing, hmmm you wouldn't be correct. Add to that I am not a great speller when I go fast and I see how you could come to that conclusion. Trust me though i know for the word "their" the e comes before the i. If I type very very slowly I cna make it come our right but if I do that then I loose interest in writing, so generally i jsut let 'er rip.

Jsut thought I would mention this since we were talking about grammar.
39. Dpeck | August 8, 2010 at 6:23 am

Yeah Orlando! You guys are awesome!! More pictures of the great pro-equality folks in Orlando, please! And I'm really looking forward to hearing what our 'inside source' has to say : )
40. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 6:29 am

I guess that very clear judgement telling them that it is discrimination and practically in the same way as loving vs virginia wasn't clear enough for him to see that the mlk civil rights comparison is pretty much dead. You're shocking a 2 week old corpse brian and expecting it to wake up *CLEAR* You are just like the civil rights movement but you are the kkk in favor of jim crowe laws and governors blocking schools from being intergrated
41. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:34 am

Well I did learn a new word from the article, "bloviates"
NOM bloviates, see I even am using it in the correct context.
42. James Tuttle | August 8, 2010 at 6:34 am

Is anyone else excited for tomorrow? I'm hoping Judge Walker will rule on wether or not to continue the stay. Does anyone know how soon the 9th circuit court would issue a stay (or hopefully not) in the event that Walker decides to let marriages resume?
43. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 6:34 am

Holding their meeting in a Church makes sense to me as well. The Christian right has no arguments left……I read on the internet
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/08/08/partners-in-…

"Christian Reconstructionists have long sought to redefine freedom of religion as freedom to impose their religion on society without interference. The success of the Prop8 campaign would serve to further this goal by effectively doing precisely that. The entire argument for the discrimination of homosexuals, and the denial of their civil rights, is based on Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. If this doctrine can be imposed in this case, it can be imposed in others."
44. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 6:35 am

I thought he was ruling on tuesday? dunno i hope no stay
45. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:35 am

“On Thursday, the will of the people defining marriage was subverted by one judge. . . . This is not a minor change – it is a radical agenda.”

I am sorry, but I BELIEVE, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, the will of the people was subverted on Wednesday.

I think Thursday was when the floodgates of hell opened up and swallowed the souls of all good and right thinking people, the sky collapsed upon us and the world came to an end.

Oh, wait… no… Thursday was just Thursday.
46. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 6:39 am

Yes freedom is a radical agenda so is upholding the principles of the constitution.
I can't believe ppl are afraid of us we just want the current civil rights that we are entitled to they want to rip up the constitution and replace it with the bible. I mean how do they not have fbi agents watching them?
47. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:39 am

BS Brown et al are desperate, look he is giving up completely ont he courts, read what he says,

"Even if the Supreme Court does not protect marriage, we the people can change the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as between one man and one woman. You are part of a community that represents the majority of Americans all around this great country."

It is never going to work. Constituitional Amendments take a long time to get through. The courts will rule for SSM and by the time any voting comes around for a Constituitonal Amendment the public will be like, "Ho-hum, yeah SSM so what, we have had it for years now and it really hans't changed anything. I'm not voting for it"
48. rf | August 8, 2010 at 6:40 am

There's no guarantee he's going to decide on the stay tomorrow but maybe by tuesday?

While you're asking, I have a similar question, that I havent seen anyone address–if Walker decides not to stay AND the 9th circuit decides not to stay, can the proponents go to the supreme court and ask them to stay? ALSO, on the question of appeals–if the 9th circuit decides there is no standing for an appeal (as per the plaintiffs stay doc)–which I know is unlikely, can the proponents still go to the supreme court and ask them to intervene?
49. adambink | August 8, 2010 at 6:42 am

Hey all, Arisha posted a dispatch from the rally above.
50. ElsieH | August 8, 2010 at 6:42 am

Constitutional amendment? BB is smoking some wicked strong ganja chased with a shot of absinthe.
51. StraightForEquality | August 8, 2010 at 6:43 am

Maybe it was planned months ahead and the Tampa listing was just a decoy. They make a point of the equality folks only planning the counter event since Wednesday. Doesn't that make the great turnout even more impressive?
52. Mackenzie | August 8, 2010 at 6:44 am

yes and since Lady Johannessen is so factually incorrect, I would be hard pressed to take anything coming out of her mouth to be the truth. This happened not even a week ago and she already has the day wrong. You would think coming from someone who believes that gays are going to destroy life as we know it, that they could at least remember the day of the week that we did it on. LOL
53. Dpeck | August 8, 2010 at 6:44 am

"Oh, wait… no… Thursday was just Thursday."

Bah-da BING !!

That was flawless, Anongrl : )
54. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:45 am

You GO granny!

We do pick on grammar and spelling, because it often does indicate (or seems to do) things about the typist.

Thanks for reminding us that appearance is not everything.

And you carry on as passionately and as quickly as you have been, no problems!
55. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:46 am

138 pages with VERY sharp edges. We can cut off ALL the hydra's heads at once with this.

Yes, indeed… this is the veriest proof that the pen IS mightier than the sword!
56. Sheryl Carver | August 8, 2010 at 6:48 am

I just sent him the following email. I doubt it will make any difference, but you never know.

Email text:

Your reasoning is false.

It's like some folks said during the bans on interracial marriage – "blacks have the same right as whites; they can marry a member of their own race."

The point is 2 single currently unmarried adults who want to spend their lives together should be able to have the same access to civil marriage as any other 2 citizens. Gay folks have no interest in marrying someone of the opposite sex. But if they decided they had to, would you really want a gay man marrying your daughter, or a lesbian marrying your son? That wouldn't be a match made in heaven, would it?

Please THINK!
57. Mackenzie | August 8, 2010 at 6:48 am

I guess he forgot that like 2/3 of the states either have to have a popular initiative or legislative votes in favor of said constitutional amendment along with another large majority of congress approving said constitutional amendment before the states are even allowed to vote. That is why we have so few amendments in our constitution and the first 10 don't really count since they were added on right away.
58. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:50 am

34 attendees? I wonder how many of the members of that very church stayed away? Sounds like MOST of them.

Anybody got any idea how many NOM staff are still on the tour?

And who this supposed spokesperson Ellen Johnson is?
59. Barb | August 8, 2010 at 6:52 am

I heard the appeals panel at the 9th circuit this month was 3 liberal justices, so they would be unlikely to grant a stay. Unless Judge Walker continues his stay, the appeal would need to go to the Supreme Court.

I'd be interested to find out if the issue of whether the Defedant Intervenors have standing wouldn't need to be addressed first. They can't appeal a stay up the circuit if they don't have standing to do so (I would assume).
60. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 6:55 am

On the question of whether Proponents can go to the Supreme Court for a stay – Yes. Boies, in his talk at the Commonwealth Club, discusses this possibility. He said that sometimes the justices write an opinion accompanying a ruling on a request for a stay and if they were to do that here, it may give some hint of what to expect from the Court if/when the case comes to them.
61. Dave in CA | August 8, 2010 at 6:56 am

34 attendees – is the before or after NOM math is applied?

80/56 = 1.42
1.42 * 34 attendees = 48.57
rounding up, that yields NOM had 49 calculated attendees.
62. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 6:56 am

Since there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court until the Court of Appeals has dealt with the case, I can't imagine that the Supreme Court could (or in this case would even WANT to) get involved.

So I would guess that if Walker removes the stay and the 9th Circuit Court declines to issue one, that will be that.
63. Mackenzie | August 8, 2010 at 6:58 am

well if what straight grandmother said was correct earlier that their "average" attendance is 450, that means like 1 out of every 13 people decided to stick around for the afternoon event. I guess a majority of them just had better things to do than attend this biggoted event. And you know this church made mention of it to try and increase attendance numbers this afternoon. That is just too bad.
64. Anna Bryan | August 8, 2010 at 6:58 am

Did everyone just have better things to do on Sunday afternoon than to "protect marriage"? It seems that if the extinction of the human race was really at stake, more than 34 people might show up.
65. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:58 am

Arisha, this was so FUNNY-
"Well, actually Brian, you weren’t standing by watching, we have video of you conversing with a group of police officers 100 feet away. It’s ok, but you shouldn’t lie in the Lord’s house, we know you caught it on YouTube."

I love your sense of humor!!!
66. Raymond Fernandez | August 8, 2010 at 6:59 am

MANY thanks to the trackers and the protesters for the great job and the numbers count wanted to share the FF4E update with you all.

Today is Sunday the LORD'S DAY! NOM=34 vs Equality=134. I should mention that NOM could only pull 34 ppl ON A SUNDAY IN A CHURCH! The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were there along with Stand Up Florida. Thank You NOM for continuing to make us proud to be americans, having faith in our judicial system, faith in our fellow man, and always being the best butt of our jokes.
67. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 7:04 am

Yeah it is probably the absinthe, it litreally drove VanGogh crazy. I was at the mental hospital he was in and saw his room just last month, it is not far from me in St. Remy and quite interesting. Although it still operates as a mental hospital, they have a historical part sectioned off open for visitors. I agree BSB is on the absinthe or something similar.
68. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:04 am

I think 450 is just the capacity of their church, per their website. I don't think I've seen anything that indicates what their usual attendance is.
69. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 7:05 am

34 inside, including, most likely, a bit of a captive audience (the church elders and such, who might well have wanted to leave but were probably asked not to by the minister or whoever organized this, in order to "show our guests some support").

134 outside, in a rally that was organized, according to NOM, last Wednesday.

Is it just my imagination, or is absolutely NOTHING working for them right now? Can it be that the wimpy kid on the playground (us) by standing up and saying "enough, you are not knocking me down any more!" has defeated the bully (NOM)? And I spell out who is US and THEM not for the benefit of you lovely people here who I know would get it, but for Louis and Brian (Hi Louis! Hi Brian) when they come in and read it. And if a "we are being bullied" analogy shows up anywhere in their rhetoric, I will laugh my BUTT off.
70. Mackenzie | August 8, 2010 at 7:08 am

lol well it made me feel a little bit better, but if they have their own preschool at the church they have to have decent numbers for that set up to not bankrupt them.
71. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:09 am

Good one, Anonygirl.
72. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:11 am

I agree with Kathleen, and I also think that if the 9th Circuit says that there is no standing for an appeal, that decision itself would then be appealed to the SCOTUS.
73. rf | August 8, 2010 at 7:13 am

thanks Kathleen (and anonygrl), While I'd like to believe that CA will get marriage equality next week–it struck me odd that some places were gearing up for weddings in the hopes that no permanent stay would be granted. i could see tho, even if the 9th circuit said go ahead, the supreme court could block it as they would likely be more cautious. and i don;'t think they have anything to lose by waiting.

Kathleen, did you mention or suppose in another thread that the fact that imperial county (is that the one?) wasn't allowed to join the suit might be grounds for an appeal and they might have standing to appeal? or something to that affect?
74. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 7:15 am

Ha ha ha ha ha. I forgot about extinction! Yes when SSM is legal throughout the land all hetrosexual couples will stop copulating, well the world accordning to NOM et al anyway, and we a specieces ,will become extinct. I forgot about that thanks for reminding me.
Do you think BS Brown is busy building an ark in California, and the 34 people in Orlando and the 16 in Atlanta are guaranteed a berth?
75. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:16 am

TO ANYONE WHO ATTENDED and/or HAS VIDEO or PHOTOS of the Ohio event:

Holly Hahn, the equality supporter who was grabbed by a NOM supporter and then arrested for assault at the Ohio event, is still looking for anyone who either witnessed the incident or has video and/or photo documentation of what happened.

I've been told that she entered a plea of 'not guilty' at her arraignment and awaits a trial date.

Adam/Eden – has someone at Courage Campaign looked carefully through all the raw video and any photos you have access to, to see if there's anything helpful there?

thanks everyone.
76. Monte | August 8, 2010 at 7:19 am

I met and shook his hand, he's quite handsome up close! Nice firm handshake. Very cordial and welcoming… Very much a politician. As a new friend said today, "He'll be runnin for office some day"… But over all my impression of him wasn't entirely disagreeable. We did discuss that even though we see things differently that there can still be a civil discourse between us. I said,"God bless ya real good", he returned the blessing.
77. Bob | August 8, 2010 at 7:19 am

thinking of Holly Hahn, sending love
78. Bonobo | August 8, 2010 at 7:20 am

Only if they promise not to hold hands.

Oh yeah, just as a reminder, try to get your reservation confirmation on letterhead. Apparently they don't take facebook confirmations.
79. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:25 am

After reading Walker's order denying Imperial County's motion to intervene, I realized that one (if the not the primary) motive for the County's motion was concern that Proponents might not have standing for an appeal. I haven't yet gone back to read IC's original motion to see if what reasons they put forth.

I do think that any order Walker issued in the trial can be appealed, but I'm not sure of what procedural posture would be required. For example, maybe that particular appeal would have to go forward as a request for an interlocutory appeal. But I'm just speculating because I just don't know. One commentator characterized the fact that Walker waiting to rule on the County's motion until the decision was released as a "mischievous time bomb."
80. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 7:26 am

Say it together now, slow and low t-h-i-r-t-y …f-o-u-r…people. Okay I declare another #FAIL NOM.

34 people that is it!! And BS Brown and Maggpie Gallagher think they are going to get a Constituitional Amendment? Not so much. If you think about it, Arisha and the 2 camera guys are 10% of the amount of people NOM dragged in.

NOM= FAIL…FAIL…FAIL…FAIL…FAIL…FAIL…FAIL…FAIL

Hey Brian get busy on your ark building, LOL! Louis, pass him the hammer, and get out fo the way, we all know you are all thumbs.

This is hysterical, 34 people just think about that. I bet the collection plate is going to be pretty thin in Orlando. 34 people??? Why have they not stopped this disaster???Oh Louis you are the best friend the GLBT community has had in a long time by convincing BS and Maggie to put on this dog and pony show. NOM- National Organization of Morons, and Louis is driving the bus ha-ha.
81. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 7:27 am

I found this very interesting article about the issue we have been talking about regarding the status of "Defendant vs Intervenors" I don't know if we are on agreements about what they can or can't do. I know I'm still confused.
Chris Geidner has this to say about "Why Challenge the Prop 8 Proponents' Appeal?" Long article but I know we all want to read more……
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/why-c…
82. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:29 am

@Kathleen, one news article I saw from Imperial Valley (which I'm guessing is in Imperial County?) said that the reason that they moved to intervene was to preserve the right of appeal. If you go to look at the motion to intervene, could you please post a link here? I can't open documents from Justia for some reason.
83. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 7:30 am

just a small section of above article:
"Some might say that the lawyers for the plaintiffs should do whatever they can to win the case, but, with this argument, I don't believe it is wise or even necessarily correct.

Trying to keep the proponents from appealing an adverse court decision seems to me to be precisely the wrong move right now. It gives unnecessary ammunition to opponents of marriage equality, who have been trying to argue that going to court at all is somehow "unfair" for trying to "overturn the will of the voters." The "will of the voters" argument, however, is bunk because it doesn't matter what one state's voters want if their action violates the federal Constitution. It's completely fair and just to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court for that reason.

At the same time, however, the appellate courts are the safeguard of the federal judiciary. A federal district court judge — like Walker — is subject to review from the Ninth Circuit, which is then subject to the review of the Supreme Court.

Setting up the opponents of marriage equality like the National Organization for Marriage and others by trying to stop that appellate process risks giving legitimacy to what has been, thus far, an illegitimate argument."
84. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 7:32 am

Bonobo -Tears of laughter running down my cheeks with your,

"Oh yeah, just as a reminder, try to get your reservation confirmation on letterhead. Apparently they don’t take facebook confirmations."

I'm really giggly today, I have drunk way to much Coke Zero today and am all caffeined up. Nohting make me giggle like another #FAIL NOM. And the comments today are so funny. Even Arisha is hysterically funny today.
85. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:35 am

@HunterR, thanks for the article, that was very interesting.

As far as what the plaintiffs "should" do, that argument you list above has bearing on what, politically, might be the best move. Theoretically, the only thing motivating Boies and Olsen is getting their clients (the 4 named plaintiffs) married. If there's no appeal, that happens all the sooner.
86. Sheryl Carver | August 8, 2010 at 7:38 am

Kathleen,

There seem to be so many variables about whether or not a stay or an appeal can/will be granted. Imperial County's request, whether or not the DIs have standing, etc.

Can you estimate what sort of time range we are looking at before the 9th Circuit Court decides about granting a stay (assuming Judge Walker doesn't stay his own decision) &/or deciding who, if anyone, has standing to appeal?

If the 9th refuses to grant a stay, &/or determines neither Imperial County nor the DIs have standing to appeal, does either party have recourse to go directly to SCOTUS? If so, how long could that take?

Guess it's the little kid in me that wants to know how long 'til Christmas. Don't know what the presents will be, nor even if there'll only be a lump of coal in the stocking, but I want to know WHEN I'll know.

Thanks & <3 … Sheryl
87. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:39 am

Thanks for pointing to the article. Interesting, indeed. I have a lot of reading to do just to catch up on the motions and orders that have been filed on this issue. I certainly appreciate seeing any informed analysis that's out there.
88. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:41 am

Ann, I can send it as an attachment to an email. If you want it sent to some email other than the one listed on your facebook profile, send me a PM through fb w/ the addy you want used.
89. Mark | August 8, 2010 at 7:42 am

If I'm reading this correctly, you mean they could marry in the state of California, correct? Which would be wonderful. But here's where the patchwork quilt of equality in our great nation really leads to further inequality. My husband and I are at an age where we sometimes fantasize about our retirement. Currently, there are only a handful of states where we could retire and remain married, otherwise we have to stay here in California. How is that freedom? It certainly isn't liberty to move around the country!
90. Alan E. | August 8, 2010 at 7:44 am

There is a major difference between comments and "official" documents that should go through at least more proofreading than comments. It just shows that he wrote this up, patted himself on the back, and put it out for publication. I expect typos on comments. Any basic editing should be done by a 2nd person to at least show that amount of credibility.
91. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

Oh crap, all because of Katleen I had to go look up "interlocutory" geesh. I msut say my vocabulary is improving jsut being on P8TT.
92. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

Sorry I can't help. It requires speculation on a process I don't fully understand (the procedure – what the legal issues are for standing, etc.). Sadly, all I can say is Christmas will get here when it gets here.
93. Monte | August 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

Awesome Day

Wow what a day. The very first protest of my 41year old life. What a day! Close to 150 Floridians and friends from out of state stood up to the bullies, and they turned coward on us and went inside. Just like childish bullies, run up and smack ya, (proverbially speaking ofcourse) then run inside like a bit@h! They send out incindeiry statements about us then when it comes time to " meet on the playground", they pussied out. Even though they were inside, it was still very clear that our message was way more popular!

That's the message of acceptance and tolerance, teaching your children to love all people, just like the beautiful family that was there, that are full supportive of equality. Mom and Dad and two sons, the whole family chanted with us, as we cried out for our equal rights

I got to meet the fabulously gorgeous Miss Arisha today, what a goddess!! The cameras don't do justice to those FIERCE eyes!! Thanks for all you do!

Today was a day I shall never forget

"But also the lovely grace to offer an olive branch in peace, that's truely where the victory comes from is, overwhelming, all consuming love. Love for one another. That's all it takes, one heart at a time…". Monte
94. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

Kathleen, the FB addy will be just fine, thank you. A ScribD link would work, too — those I could open. Thanks, sorry for the trouble.
95. StraightForEquality | August 8, 2010 at 7:46 am

If the 34 people in Orlando are like most of the NOM supporters that show up on this tour, don't count on them to prevent the extinction of the species. There are probably few woman able to reproduce among them.
96. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 7:46 am

I'm learning that there is two types of interventions intervention of right and permissive intervention. Here is the legal sentence
" "Intervention of right" is intervention that must be granted by the court, while permissive intervention is discretionary. Judge Walker granted intervention of right in this case, writing in a tentative order on June 30:

The proponents of Prop 8 meet all four of [the rule for granting intervention of right]’s criteria: (1) their motion to intervene is timely, filed just days after plaintiffs filed the complaint; (2) as official proponents, they have a significant protectible interest in defending Prop 8's constitutionality; (3) their interest in upholding Prop 8 is directly affected by this lawsuit; and (4) their interest is not represented by another party, as no defendant has argued that Prop 8 is constitutional. Significantly, with respect to the last factor, although the responsibilities of the Attorney General of California contemplate that he shall enforce the state’s laws in accordance with constitutional limitations, Attorney General Brown has informed the court that he believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Because the proponents have established their entitlement to intervene as of right, the court GRANTS the proponents’ motion to intervene as defendants."

soooooo Judge Walker stablished that the intervenors can have a intervention of RIGHT. But at the same time in his ruling I believe I read they have no say in appeal because they are NOT the defendants….
97. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 7:47 am

sooooo what gives…….?
98. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:49 am

@Mark, what I'm saying is that Boies and Olsen represent Sandy Stier and Kristen Perry, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo. If there's no appeal, Sandy and Kris can get married, and Paul and Jeff can get married.

Boies and Olsen don't represent you, I'm sorry to say. I don't mean that to sound harsh. I'm saying that what we all may want doesn't dictate what Boies and Olsen do.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the patchwork quilt, and liberty to move. I'm just saying that if their clients can get married sooner if there's no appeal, then fighting the appeal is what they're supposed to do for their clients.
99. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 7:52 am

HunterR, I read that too, and I think that part applied to ProtectMarriage.com, who defended the case at trial. Imperial County's motion to intervene was not nearly as timely. I have no idea if they have a right to intervene, but I'm guessing not — can't explain why, except that I think Walker has been very careful on the law.
100. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

Thank you Monte for sharing with us, and thank you for being there!!!

You ROCK!
101. Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 7:55 am

Why does this not surprise me? So they held it inside the church as a new tactic to hide the truth. Guess they didn't count on a supporter of equality and the Constitution being able to get inside and give us a report, did they? Oh, well, nobody ever said that the NOMbies were the sharpest knives in the drawer or the brightest bulbs on the Home Depot shelf.
102. Alan E. | August 8, 2010 at 7:56 am

Their "Publication Standards" page is pretty funny. They want America to return to fundamental roots but decline to have an opinion. Please note all of the religious quotes that insinuate support.
http://www.renewamerica.com/publishing.htm
103. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 7:58 am

@Ann, @ Kathleen
I think after reading the whole article it makes a little more sense. I was just thinking about LOST the TV show, and for a moment I felt the desperation of being lost in a deserted island and not knowing WTF….

"Now, however, the plaintiffs argued in their filing on Friday that there is a "significant question as to whether proponents even have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals."

Although the argument was not fully laid out in the filing on Friday, it looks quite weak to me on the legal merits. All of the cases cited by plaintiffs appear from my review to relate only to instances where permissive intervention was granted and not intervention of right, as the proponents have here. Additionally, the cases cited appear to involve situations in which the state whose law or initiative was at issue did itself defend the law and, at some point in the appellate process, decided against appealing a lower decision. Here, of course, the intervening defendants were the only individual or entity defending the amendment even at trial.

So, even if the plaintiffs do attempt to keep the proponents from appealing, it's not clear to me that they have the legal arguments to succeed. (And, even if the proponents do lack standing, this is an issue that can be addressed by a court sua sponte, or by itself regardless of whether the parties raise it.)

Finally, assuming that the Ninth Circuit allows the proponents to appeal and hears the case and then, assuming they lose, proponents appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, some have said that the Supreme Court won't take the case because the court hasn't ever heard a case in which the only defendant was an intervening defendant. First of all, such a broad assertion seems unlikely (and I've only seen it made without reference to articles or studies claiming this), but I also haven't done a full review myself so I can't say definitively either way. But, regardless, as I wrote in an email to SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein about this, something about it seems not right.

Goldstein, who appears regularly before the justices and whose blog is the gold standard of online reporting about the court, more or less agreed, writing, "I don't think the Court will think twice about the status of the defendants here given the unique situation in California. If they want to get involved, that won't hold them back for an instant."

That makes sense to me.

The case laid out at trial by the legal team led by Ted Olson and David Boies was impeccable. The argument — legally, publicly and morally — was nearly flawless. For all of the reasons described above, however, I see fighting the decision of the intervening defendants to appeal as a potential — and unnecessary — misstep."
104. Bonobo | August 8, 2010 at 8:00 am

SG – maybe I should try that. I'm a lemonade drinker myself. The only way I can stomach much of the NOM people is to go from P8TT to LandoverBabtist and read their bumperstickers. What can I say… it amuses me, and keeps me sane. (somewhat)
105. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 8:06 am

HunterR, there's a difference between an argument that may not win and a misstep. If they lose the argument, it doesn't follow that it was a misstep. I think it may be worth a try. Again, I'm no expert in this area, but if they think they have a shot at stopping the case right here, I say go for it. Quit while we're ahead.
106. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 8:08 am

Way to go Monte!!! many thanks for your first hand report.
Although this is your first protest if it is needed again I hope it won't be your last. You represented today, for lal of us who could not be there, thanks man.
107. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 8:09 am

Gotta go out for a while. Oddly enough, although I've been immersed in P8TT and the filings and cases we're discussing here for days, my family still needs groceries. Can you believe it??
108. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 8:10 am

Man this is worst (or best?) than a telenovela!

something else….the case WILL NOT BE FULLY BRIEFED UNTIL LATE DECEMBER?

"At the Circuit Court, the case (Perry, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,) has now been docketed as 10-16696. That Court has now issued a scheduling order. Under that order, the case will not be fully briefed until late December; any extensions of filing dates must have the court’s approval."

another source of information: http://www.scotusblog.com/
109. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 8:18 am

I agree totally with your assessment of the case itself, and the brilliance of the legal team. However, I can see where this current question would NOT be a misstep on their part.

1) They won. Any time something goes on to the next court, there is the possibility, however slim, of losing. They may not FEAR that, but it would be poor judgement and possibly irresponsible lawyering on their part if they did not at least acknowledge the possibility of such. That being the case, this might be a way to preclude the case being overturned, and it is their job to explore all such reasonable avenues.

2) As mentioned above, technically they are fighting for their clients, not the whole country. If they win for their clients, they have done the job for which they were being paid, which is, again, their responsibility. Then we go back to reason one.

3) Even keeping in mind the national importance of this case, with the two other factors, it seems that a win should be held on to. If this case does not make it to appeals, it stands as the high water mark for the rest of the country, precedent that is going to be VERY tough to rule against in all the cases to come. So even if this is it and only California (!) gets equality in this go round, we all still win in the long run.

And the way I see it, even if it does go to appeals and eventually is overturned, Olson and Boies have shown us how to win this war. It will not be through arguing about whose God says what, nor whether lots and lots of people think one thing or another, but rather through presentation of solid evidence and the application of the laws of the land, which is just how it should be.

I am not a lawyer… this is just how I read it.
110. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 8:19 am

Darned family! Send them out into the backyard to hunt for forage there.
111. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 8:27 am

Ann, I just sent off what I thought was all the filings related to Imperial County's request to intervene. But I just looked at Geitner's article again and he's citing things I don't think I included, so I'll look for those and forward. There has been a lot of activity on this issue, most of which I didn't really pay attention to, so there's a lot of catching up to do before I even understand the history to date, let alone the issues involved.
112. Sagesse | August 8, 2010 at 8:31 am

@Mackenzie

And the states have ten years to ratify the amendment. Some of us are old enough to remember the Equal Rights Amendment. At the end of ten years they were one(?) state short. There is some question how many states, exactly, because over time some states reversed their ratification, but it may or may not have done it in a way that was valid. Or something like that.

We'll just amend the constitution….. riiigghhht.
113. Sagesse | August 8, 2010 at 8:33 am

It's Sunday. Do you suppose they trapped the congregation in the church at the end of the service, and won't let them leave?
114. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 8:33 am

Bonobo, In your post you said the bumper stickers at Landover Baptist were funny. That kind of intrigued me so I searched and found their website. ROTFL.. Why didn't you provide a link so all could enjoy? These are really serious Baptists. Ha-Ha-ha http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
More giggles ha-ha-ha…
Took me a while to find the bumper stickers though. I thought some of them were kind of mean but knowing the church I could see the humor behind the mean.
115. Sheryl Carver | August 8, 2010 at 8:42 am

Does this mean that the 9th thinks the DIs have standing to appeal? Or is this a sort of "place holder" until that issue is resolved?

You're right, HunterR, this is an ongoing cliffhanger! I'm spending much too much time reading/commenting about this issue!
116. Sheryl Carver | August 8, 2010 at 8:44 am

Thanks, Kathleen. Would that one of us could get a crystal ball as one of our presents.
117. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 8:45 am

Hunter, nice work!!! The Appeal schedule looks pretty good to me. Of course we would all like it to be heard in court tomorrow but the reality is we have to get in line.
118. Ray in MA | August 8, 2010 at 8:46 am

Monte, I (over 50) had the same WOW factor at my 1st protest in NOM v. Providence, RI.

These are incredible times.
119. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 8:48 am

HunterR, there are two different issues being addressed in the article (1) do Proponents have the legal right to appeal and (2) should Plaintiffs challenge that standing or just let the appeal go forward.

As to the first, I don't know enough about the legal issues involved to really offer much in that discussion. Geidner seems to be saying that the objections that have been put forth for Proponents' lack of standing for appeal have all been cases involving permissive intervention, whereas Proponents have been granted intervention as a right. It would seem that this is, indeed, an important distinction. We'll have to keep watching for informed legal analysis to better understand this.

As to the second, there are good arguments for both positions and I think that's a great discussion for all of us to have here. But as Ann has explained, the obligation of the plaintiffs' attorneys are is to their clients. As important as this case is and as far-reaching as its impact might be, this is on its face, a case about two couples who want to get married in California. And their attorneys have to try to make that happen in the most expeditious way possible.
120. Bonobo | August 8, 2010 at 8:49 am

Sorry SG – I've been a "fan" of landoverbaptist for so long (back in the days when people thought it was a "real" church) that I forgot that not everyone knows about it.
Do you, by any chance, know of http://www.bettybowers.com ?

She'll tickle your funny bone too. And she's been having a lot to say about NOM lately.
121. HunterR. | August 8, 2010 at 8:50 am

@Sheryl
It seems to me that is the logical sequence of events that indeed the D-I do have the right to appeal.
@ GM thank you! Just following your example!
122. Sheryl | August 8, 2010 at 8:51 am

Pretty much what Alan said. Comments are one thing but if I was going to publish something (be it in print or on a webstie, I would run spellchecker and then have someone else read it.
123. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 8:52 am

LOL.

Forget my comment about there appearing to be yet more documents cited in Geidner's article. I see these were referring to the Proponents' intervention, not the question of Imperial County.
124. Straight Ally #3008 | August 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

When I say "NOM," you say "FAIL!"

NOM!

(FAIL!)

NOM!

(FAIL!)
125. Ray in MA | August 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

I've been concerned about this complication for a few days now.

If it doesn't go to appeal, we may have to get in line with the MA/DOMA approach and hope for other current sane states (who offer ss marriage) to do likewise.
126. Sagesse | August 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

Plus, as Geidner alluded to, one of the first thing the 9th circuit will do is verify that D-I's have standing to appeal. This issue is no secret. The appeals court can raise it even if plaintiffs do not.
127. Lesbians Love Boies | August 8, 2010 at 9:12 am

Someone needs to remember and look at birth announcements in 9 months…see if there is a dramatic decrease…lol

I checked out the wedding announcements between last sunday and today, more today than last week here in Arizona.
128. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 9:13 am

SA, like it! But what is the second verse?
It needs a second verse.
129. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 9:18 am

Thanks for locating that, HunterR. They haven't posted it yet at the Court's website: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php#

I'm kicking myself for knowing so little about procedure. I was told by someone that 'technically' Proponents' appeal notice was premature, as Walker hasn't yet issued his formal order closing the case. So I honestly don't know what the implications of this scheduling order are. Maybe it's just a routine procedure, following any notice of appeal, and is subject to revision once specific issues are taken up. Or maybe it means more than that. I just don't KNOW!!! Accchh! so frustrating.

However, discovering this scheduling order brings up a problem I'm hoping to find a way to solve. I can access this document through PACER. But the problem is knowing that the document is there to retrieve it. Every time I do a query to PACER, I get charged on a per page basis. That's not a big deal now, early in the appeal, but as the docket sheet gets large, and the number of parties who are involved grows, it can start adding up. And, while I have no problem paying to obtain the documents, I don't want to have to start paying just for queries.

Walker's Court set up a listserve that sent a message every time an item was placed on the docket sheet. As such, I could just retrieve any new documents by paying only for the pages in the document, and avoid have to query the system. I'm hoping something similar will be implemented by the 9th Circuit. It's clear that they understand this is a case of great interest.

I'm just putting this out there to let people know that, until I find a solution, I may not be able to assure everyone the speedy service we've all come to expect.
130. Anna Bryan | August 8, 2010 at 9:19 am

Regarding the Defendant Intervenors standing to appeal:

1. The point of the the plaintiff's filing on Friday was to make the likelihood of success for Defendant Intervenors look as slim as possible. The issue of standing is just one more "what if" so it made sense to mention it. Whether they will continue to challenge DI's standing after the stay issue has been decided remains to be seen, but it makes sense to have this option to pursue.

2. With all due respect to Chris Geidner (he knows I love him to death), he is one person. The Plaintiffs have a huge legal team with resources beyond any of us. Given their performance to date, I think they probably checked their facts before they submitted the brief. The relevant issue is has the Supreme Court ever heard a case where the DI's were the only party defending the law since they vacated the prior precedent (I believe that was 1997). It's very likely that the issue hasn't come before the court since then – that's relatively recent.

3. I think AFER's goal is to get marriage equality again in CA as soon as possible, especially given the support of the current Governor and AG. It's uncertain that we will have such a supportive government in Jan 2011.

4. I agree that this is a huge win, it's the best opinion that we could have hoped for, and it's fairly broad. It probably does make some sense to put this in the win column and move on. Since the ruling was somewhat California specific, and the 9th Circuit is likely to narrow it further, there really is no benefit to allowing it to move up the system.
131. Julie In St. Pete | August 8, 2010 at 9:21 am

My friend Ruthie (Rainbow Umbrella) and I (Rainbow PomPom) had a BLAST in our 3D glasses today and I'm so glad we drove over from St. Pete to hang out with the Orlando Beautiful People. I love you ALL!
132. Josiah | August 8, 2010 at 9:24 am

Which day did we become more American?
133. Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 9:42 am

@ Bonobo: I LOVE Betty Bowers! She is just so HILARIOUS!
134. fiona64 | August 8, 2010 at 9:45 am

I worked with several members of SF's Sisters chapter on "The 'Net," a Sandra Bullock film. We were all supposed to be at an AIDS vigil, and the director was local — he knew who the Sisters were and put them right up front in the scene because of their prominence in AIDS education.

Yeah, how horrible. People who share ::gasp:: information and love.

Louis (hi, Louis!) et al. are really showing their ignorance now.

Of course, holding their "rally" inside a church means that they can bar whomever they please — look for more of this.

Love,
Fiona
135. fiona64 | August 8, 2010 at 9:51 am

Hey … I drink absinthe. No hallucinations.

Maybe it would help BSB if he had a snort of two of the green fairy, though; he looks like he could use some help lightening up.

Love,
Fiona
136. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 9:53 am

@Mark, I was rushed as I wrote before, and I think I sounded harsh when I didn't mean to. I apologize if my tone was off-putting.

I know you want this case to mean equality across the country. We all want equality. There are many routes we can take to get there. Not all of them are obvious, and they may have detours.

If this ruling goes into effect and marriages start happening among CA's huge population, think of the national impact that will have. We can do more studies about the children of same-sex parents, about same-sex married couples — more evidence that the sky won't fall if we have marriage equality.

So it won't be all bad for you if this case isn't appealed. If this case stands, people will bring similar cases in other states. It won't be too many more years before the SCOTUS will have to rule on this one way or another.

Love,
Ann
137. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 9:54 am

Kathleen, thanks for the boatload of docs, LOL! Too bad I have to go out to my ILs for dinner, otherwise I could read pleadings all evening. More evidence my husband would use that I have finally truly lost it.
138. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 10:03 am

You're welcome Ann. I just KNEW you'd want them all. (it just shows how much I love you…)

Around here my bf has become accustomed to this being the only topic of conversation – he's taken to listening to music on his headphones. You think that's a hint??
139. Mark | August 8, 2010 at 10:06 am

Hi Ann S., Heavens no, you didn't sound harsh at all. I was just taking the thing one step further. Believe me, I want to see gay couples able to marry again in California as soon as possible, but on a national level, it's really ridiculous that we don't all have the freedom to live where we choose with whom we choose until this is sorted out on a national level. The commenting thing is new to me, and I'm so happy to have found this wonderful community!
140. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 10:06 am

@Kathleen — what?? You'll be letting us down??

Just kidding — what you've been doing is just fantastic. Hopefully by December (if that's when the briefs are due) it will become easier to track.
141. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 10:11 am

@Kathleen, too bad we don't live closer, otherwise your BF and my DH could get together and bemoan their fates. If I see my husband walking around with earbuds in, that will be a big hint indeed, since he doesn't have an iPod.
142. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 10:13 am

@Mark, thanks, I'm glad what I wrote didn't come across too harsh. It IS ridiculous that we don't have national marriage equality. So many other countries do. South Africa has it, for goodness sake.
143. Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 10:16 am

@ Ann S. I have the Phillips equivalent of an iPod, and believe me, they aren't all that they are cracked up to be. for one, I really don't like the earbuds in my ears. Especially since I can't find any that stay in. then there is that wire hanging everywhere getting caught in things. I'll just open Windows Media Center and play my music in the background while on my laptop.
144. Michael | August 8, 2010 at 10:23 am

After demonstrating his commitment to the Ten Commandments by lying again, militant anti-gay activist Brown continues to redefine morality. Unrepentant homophobe King smearing the memory of her wonderful parents with the darkness and shame of homophobia is not "exuding love" as Brown wants people to believe. There is no such thing as a homophobic Christian–it's an oxymoron
145. TomTallis | August 8, 2010 at 10:32 am

Brian Brown has that sour look on his face because his celice is on too tight.
146. Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 10:42 am

Tom, are you Jewish, by chance? After all, your name concludes with the name of a Jewish prayer shawl.
147. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 10:54 am

You wrote -"…there really is no benefit to allowing it to move up the system."

Well except for my twin 2 year old grandchildren in Virginia that is. If it stays where it is now it benefits only those people living in Califronia. The further it moves up the system the more people it benefits. I really would like my grandchildren to have 2 legal parents before they hit puberty. This court case will do that as there is no way in hell Virginia is ever, on theirr own going to permit SSM.
What do you propose, that we go through this 50 times? When are we ever going to get the Dream Team of Olson and Bois again?

I'm pretty sure that Felyx and our resident rusky do see a benefit of having it move up the system as well as Franck in Madagascar who is unable to be with C. here in the states. Some people have special needs so yeah let's move it ALL the way up. I would bet the defendents want it to go all the way and not stop. I would like to ask them that question actually.
148. Richard A. Walter (s | August 8, 2010 at 11:07 am

I live in North Carolina, and both of us have health issues. No, not the same health issues, as most of mine have to do with a neurological diagnosis of Complicated Ocular Migraines and also the resulting increase in the progression of the arthritic deterioration in my right wrist and hand from being run over two years ago and my wrist being broken, but we still have health issues. And yes, it would be a HUGE benefit to us to be able to be LEGALLY married and have it recognized on the state and federal level, because it would really make it a lot easier for each of us to get a health insurance plan that would cover both of us at a price we could afford. As it stands right now, if health insurance is offered at any job I may get, I cannot add BZ to that policy without paying extra for it. And the amount I would pay would be astronomical compared to a normal family policy. I would also be taxed on that difference, thanks to DOMA. This case needs to go all the way so that all of us can join at the table of Equality and Brotherhood, and so that all of us can be on the same financial playing field as everyone else.
149. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 11:10 am

Everyone should be prepared for the possibility that, even if this goes on to be appealed and is upheld on appeal, it might be upheld on legal grounds that are not as broad as Walker's ruling. While there is generally great deference given to findings of fact on appeal, the legal conclusions are looked at as though Walker had never made any holdings at all.

So, maybe the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 but decides that the only reason it's unconstitutional is that the state has extended marriage to some ss couples, but not all. If that is the case, it is a situation fairly unique to California.

We have a long way to go before this will apply to other states.
150. l8r_g8r | August 8, 2010 at 11:15 am

We will be more American when Judge Walker (and the 9th Circuit) deny the stay.
151. l8r_g8r | August 8, 2010 at 11:22 am

I'm not a litigator, but I'm sure someone in our firm has quick access to the information because I knew the scheduling order had been entered on Friday.

I did work on the 9th Circuit for some time and it is actually somewhat unusual for a scheduling order to be out so quickly after notice of appeal has been filed. They're moving quickly on this one, which is a good sign. Also, initial briefs are due November 13, which is only three months from now. That's a fairly fast pace. Response briefs are due in December.

I'll see what I can do within the office to get access to the 9th Circuit filings as they become available.
152. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 11:27 am

That would be great! Even if you don't want to take that on, if you are just willing to notify me when they're available, I can take it from there.

Are you on facebook? If so, click on my name in this post, should take you to my facebook page, send me a PM through fb and I'll give you my email address.
153. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 12:04 pm

In case anyone is having trouble following the arguments, here you go:
http://reasondecrystallized.blogspot.com/2010/08/…
154. Ronnie | August 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm

In honor of NOM's vey amusing FAIL today to assemble up a bigger crowd then Equality supporters In Orlando, Florida…..on a Sunday…….in a church. What did they expect to happen in the home of Disney?

"See it in your mind & you will find In your imagination Mysteries & Magic, Visions fantastic Leading to strange & Wonderous dreams.

Dreams are make believe until they all come true ?

In your Imagination …..In your Imagination

Deep in your mind . It's magic you'll find. When out of the night , the forces ignite to blind you with frightening speed. You use your might to brighten the light creating a night of wonderous dreams

SOME IMAGINATION, HUH ? HA HA! "

(me)‎"Fantasmic" is an awesome show at Disney MGM Studio's. If you get a chance to believe in the magic, I highly recommend seeing this production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-k6NeEjMpw&fe…
155. Dave in ME | August 8, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Me too!
156. Dpeck | August 8, 2010 at 1:14 pm

ADMINS – I would like to suggest that we post this on the front page. This could be very helpful to Holly and we wouldn't want this to be missed by someone who could help out just because ti got buried down here in the comments. Thanks!
157. Dpeck | August 8, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Hey, that really IS handy! Thanks, Kathleen! : )
158. Sonjia | August 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm

I was there this afternoon, with my 10-year-old daughter, to stand up for what's right. This was her first protest and she came home feeling very proud of herself, hoping in some small way her actions may have sparked a movement of change. I told her that Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ruby Bridges are all people that struggled through adversity to cause change, even if it meant discomfort and standing alone. I am a straight woman, so we were in attendance as a supporter to the cause and several dear friends. I'm shocked that such anger and hatred can exist among so called "Christian" people. It's organizations like NOM, and the people that support them, that continue to stereotype Southerners as bigoted and uneducated. I can assure you we are not all that way- but I must admit that we are looking to relocate as soon as the economy recovers. I want to thank everyone involved for standing up and speaking out. Together we can continue to plant seeds of love and tolerance. Here is our mini album of the event for those of you whom are interested:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2049115&amp…
159. Brittney | August 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm

No offence to anyone here that is christian.
But is it just me, or does it seem that this whole thing revolves around religion? I bet you anything that if it weren't for religion gay marriage wouldn't even be up for debate….
I once challenged people on yahoo answers to give me good factual reasons as to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal without involving religion, their own feelings towards the matter, or the whole "children need a mother and father" bit. And guess what? Nobody could give me an answer…
Just sayin……..
160. Lesbians Love Boies | August 8, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Great post and thank you Sonjia and your daughter for standing by truth and love. It's sad that you would have to think of relocating. Good luck. If you don't mind, I would like to FB request friend with you. I am barbie in FB.
161. Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 2:17 pm

What a great post! Another of those brought-up-the-tears moments. Good job, Mom, for offering your daughter an awesome learning experience. And GIANT HUGS to your daughter. Tell her she DID help. This is exactly how change happens. Please tell her she absolutely is part of making history.

And wonderful pictures!
162. Felyx | August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm

I believe the FBI is too busy suing Wikipedia over the use of the FBI seal…
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaborat…

Taxpayer dollars put to good use!
163. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 3:03 pm

What Kathleen says is right, and I can think of two other reasons it might apply only to CA even if it goes forward. The CA Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that under CA law sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that part of the marriage cases was NOT overturned by Prop 8. (OK, I'm not sure what deference federal court would give to the CA suspect classification, so maybe that one wouldn't be a good reason.)

The other reason is that CA did have marriage equality before Prop 8 passed, so it took away existing rights that were being exercised right up through the passage of Prop 8.

If a higher court wants to rule narrowly it might point to the fact that CA did have marriage equality and it was taken away by popular vote. THAT has not happened before.
164. Ann S. | August 8, 2010 at 3:04 pm

Hooray, thank you! More stuff to read!
165. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip | August 8, 2010 at 3:33 pm

[...] air conditioning and a church pew were undoubtedly welcome for the 34 people who came to hear NOM. Amusingly but without even noting the irony, Brian Brown exhorted his audience – resting in [...]
166. Franck | August 8, 2010 at 3:53 pm

There better as hell be photos there. And cookies.

– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1144 days, as of today.
167. Franck | August 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Papa Forma, Felyx: I'm giving you a license to personally represent me there. Okay?

– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1144 days, as of today.
168. Straight Grandmother | August 8, 2010 at 6:54 pm

Brittney, I'll go you one better I'll name the main faiths, Mormons- LDS, Catholics and Baptists. It is the leadership in these churches that form together and pool their money and resources to literally organize as one cohesive unit against us. They are funding NOM and they funded ProtectectMarriage.com. It is a well funded and organized campaign against us and our largest Equality Rights Organization, the HRC, doesn't seem to me to do mch about it.

With that said, many Mormons, Catholics and Baptists do not support their church's postiion so our brush stroke cannot be totally solid. However most of the members do. It is organized religion who is against us.

I have said this before but it bears repeating. Everyone wants to blame Hitler for WWII, one bad guy who took down the world. It wasn't that way. There were millions of Germans throwing their hands in the air shouting "Heil Hitler." He may have been the leader but he had the support of the populace. It is the same with the churches, they are leading on a platform of condemnation towards our famailies and and their members are supporting them with their money, time and votes.

Not all churches of course are actively working to deny us our civil right to marriage, some chuches are inclusive. Not all christians practice active discrimination against us but many many do. I guess we should be happy our main opposition is christian, it would probably be worse if they were from that branch of Muslim practiced in Iran where they just off you for beiing GLBT. I am pretty sure the orthodox Jews are not our friends either but they dont' seem to be as out front and vocal on the issue as the Christians.
169. mike | August 8, 2010 at 9:25 pm

About the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence…

Respect them

But…these are the aspects of gay-Life that our heterosexuals brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents….DON'T understand.

If we want to sit at the same political Table – do we really want to enter the dinning room first with the guest least wanted ?
170. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 11:07 pm

And we DO read this stuff. We devour it. And then pick it apart so that we know what it means.

I get the impression our counterparts (if you could call them that) the folks who read the NOM blog, do NOT so much read court filings.

What do you think?
171. Anonygrl | August 8, 2010 at 11:08 pm

When I say "FAIL" you say "NOM"

of course.
172. MJFargo | August 9, 2010 at 12:39 am

It was my understanding (only from reading the response from the motion to stay) that it was the 9th Circuit who had refused to entertain intervenors. And, therefore, granting a stay on unyet stated grounds given the questionable status of intervenors at appeal was what Olson/Boies were arguing. It would seem to me the State of California and the 9th Circuit would make the decision on the standing of the defendants.
173. Ronnie | August 9, 2010 at 1:28 am

Yes…..we do

Because they are a part of our community. They do a lot og good charity work. How they dress & how they look is irrelevant…….<3…Ronnie
174. Brittney | August 9, 2010 at 3:05 am

You are absolutely right. The documentary 8:The Mormon Proposition was very insightful, if you haven't seen it I definately recomend you should.

I had never thought about Hitler that way, but it does make a lot of sence. If he hadn't had all those people that agreed with his logic it wouldn't have happened the way it did.

Either way, I just hope I'll still be around when same sex marriage is legal in all states of the US…
I can't even marry the love of my life because I live in Alabama. It's sad. Maybe one day people will wake up and realize that we're not hurting anyone….
175. fiona64 | August 9, 2010 at 3:55 am

Hi, Mike. Please don't presume what your heterosexual brothers, sisters, etc., will or won't understand.

I'm straight, and I have nothing but admiration for the Sisters.

Love,
Fiona (who worked with Sister Phyllis Stein and Sister Helen Wheels, among others whose names she doesn't remember, on a film)
176. Alyson | August 9, 2010 at 2:52 pm

You know this is kind of fitting. As abhorant as what these people do in the name of religion is, if they actually DO retreat back to their churches (ie: their comfort zone) and out of the public square I then they are back where I want them and where their freedom of religious bigotry is protected. Not articulating it well bug it's somehow fitting that this is where they go to escape us. It's exactly where they should go and the only place they should go. We have taken back the public square on this tour. They wanted to claim it and stuff us all back I the closet. Too late for that!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments