Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Prop 8: Scheduling order issued

Trial analysis

(An important update from one of our resident legal analysts on the next steps regarding the Motion to Stay -Adam)

Cross-posted at Calitics

by Brian Devine

This is an update on the Emergency Motion to Stay that the Prop 8 supporters filed with the Ninth Circuit last night.

The Ninth Circuit just issued an Order stating that the Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Stay is due by 11:00 p.m. tonight. The Prop 8 supporters’ reply, not to exceed 15 pages, is due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 16, 2010. This suggests that the Ninth Circuit is preparing to rule on the Motion to Stay before Judge Walker’s temporary stay expires on August 18th at 5:00 p.m.

It’s surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply.  But I wouldn’t read too much into this.  They know that everyone anticipated the Motion and that everyone’s briefs are essentially written already.

135 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:19 am

    txt ta l8r

  • 2. BradK  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Perhaps in the interest of fairness the Ninth thought that ProtectMarriage.com could use a little handicap. Of course, the 15 page limitation sort of negates that.

    [:`)

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Let the good Emails roll!

  • 4. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:21 am

    subscribin'

    Of course.

  • 5. BradK  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Just re-read Brian's posting. So only Plaintiff's response is limited to 15 pages but not the Defendant's reply?

    Still, not even close to a fair fight.

  • 6. Ronnie  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:24 am

    pft….that's all…. : I ….Ronnie

  • 7. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:25 am

    And again… subscribing.

  • 8. Bolt  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I agree, Brian, "It’s surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply." Olson's powerful briefs will marinate in their brains all weekend, and the proponents will produce another failure by Monday morning.

  • 9. Be_devine  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Sorry, I didn't state that very clearly. The Plaintiffs get 35 pages for their response, the Appellants (Prop 8 supporters) get 15 pages for their Reply.

    If Plaintiffs need more than 35 pages, they can file a "Request for Oversized Brief" at the time they file their brief tonight (which likely would be accepted by the Court.)

  • 10. Bolt  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:27 am

    If the 9th gave the proponents 300 pages they wouldn't get it right.

  • 11. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:29 am

    So, are they also gonna post it at 11pm so we can read it too?

    I am starting to feel a little nosey!

  • 12. Jeff  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:31 am

    For anyone interested the 9th District of Appeals has set up a site just for this case here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_i

    You can also sign up on their list server to get email updates there!

  • 13. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:35 am

    And could it be that the 9th Circuit is going to refuse the stay? Can we even hope?

  • 14. Pagan Perspective  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:35 am

    The Appellants needed the extra pages to draw their pictures for the court. (From the lack of competency in their previous filings, it appears that they still only get to use the thick crayolas.

    They also needed to use the extra time (weekend) to sacrifice copies of the Bill of Rights to their god, in hopes that their requests for devine guidance would quit falling on deaf ears.

  • 15. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Plaintiff's response in only 4 words:

    Show Me The Evidence

  • 16. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

    They still have Arnold as the defendant in this document. Can Arnold's attorney also file a 15 page document on Monday at 9am ; )

    ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
    official capacity as Governor of California;
    et al.,
    Defendants,
    and
    DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al.,
    Defendants -Intervenors-
    Appellants.

  • 17. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:37 am

    An image just came to mind. David Boies saying "Show me the evidence!" a la Jerry McGuire. He should finish up by throwing his hands up in the air and shouting "GOOD GOD MAN!"

  • 18. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:38 am

    And yet again on the question of standing

    The Best Way for Proposition 8 To Lose
    Let's cheer if gay marriage opponents decide not to appeal—but not if they can't.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2263943/?wpisrc=eDialog

  • 19. Dave in Me  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Tell me more! Although, I'm still reading about "NOM's Brian Brown gets the full David Blankenhorn treatment" back on 8/4, but I'll catch up soon!

    Dave in Maine

  • 20. Be_devine  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:45 am

    The caption always remains the same throughout an appeal, even if the named parties are no longer part of the case. Although he's not an Appellant, the Ninth Circuit probably wouldn't reject a filing by Schwarzenegger, and would consider it an advisory brief (called an amicus brief).

  • 21. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Torturer's Apprentice John Yoo Says It's Constitutional to Ban Gay Marriage

    You gotta hand it to John Yoo, the former Bush Administration attorney who provided a legal rationale for torturing prisoners of war. It must be tough being an anti-human-rights playa in the midst of Collectivist Berkeley, where Yoo is a professor of — wait for it — constitutional law.

    But Yoo has never backed down from the poor legal reasoning that led him and other Justice Department officials to authorize inhumane treatment of prisoners, and he's now taken a provocative stand on another question of civil rights: gay marriage.

    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/john_

  • 22. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Finally, we can't help wondering whether Yoo's proclamation on gay marriage is meant as a finger in the eye of one of his former higher-ups at the Bush Justice Department — former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who represented the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Olson survived the Bush years with his reputation and integrity largely intact. Yoo did not, and he's certainly not helping himself by continuing to publish controversialist, prejudiced propaganda thinly veiled as legal reasoning.

    Yoo probably does have issues with Ted Olson. Olson is a success and everyone loves him…and Yoo…not so much.

  • 23. Sagesse  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Pure speculation on my part, but I could well see the 9th Circuit denying a stay. Not so sure about Justice Kennedy, and that's where it's headed next.

  • 24. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:55 am

    If there are more emails left, give some to me, please.

  • 25. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Ok once again, I am 100% up to date on every email I got from this site. I spent an hour on the exercise bike reading email. I would like to thank those of you who wrote short messages. I also want to thank those of you who posted well though-out messages. Some I had to forward back to myself to make sure I keep them or check out the links later. I must say that I did skip many of the video links.

  • 26. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:01 am

    And, as always, I'll make the filed documents available at Scribd. Here's the link to the document that is the subject of this post: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35860406/CA9Doc-5

  • 27. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Forgot to subscribe.

  • 28. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Kathleen, many thanks. You are a trouper!

  • 29. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:06 am

    It is e-filed, so it will show up on the email list and I will do the usual. Everyone should have this for their late night entertainment.

  • 30. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:07 am

    You SUPER Rock!

  • 31. fiona64  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:07 am

    More on the standing issue, sent to me by a friend just now.
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/08/could-p

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 32. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:08 am

    As I've said before, I may as well have everyone get some benefit from my own obsession. :)

  • 33. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:10 am

    LOL.

  • 34. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:12 am

    Interesting take on the standing issue:
    http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/08/ballot-initiativ

    I am not a big fan of ballot initiatives, but if a state permits them it is typically because of a preference for direct democracy over republicanism. The risk in the latter is that elected officials do not identify the common good sufficiently closely with public opinion. (Again, I think that this is a virtue of republicanism, but the premise of the ballot initiative process is contrary.) The ballot initiative process is available precisely because the People cannot always trust their elected representatives to carry out their will. Thus, when elected officials decline to defend a ballot initiative in court, they are directly frustrating the whole point of the ballot initiative process. Perhaps that is their prerogative, but if so, it makes sense for someone else to come in to defend the ballot initiative's constitutionality.

  • 35. EdC  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:17 am

    under writing

  • 36. Sarah  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Okay, it's the weekend… ready for some email!

  • 37. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:21 am

    My bf might disagree. I enjoy reading aloud, so one of the things the two of us do together is I read to him. We recently finished Dracula and are currently 1/2 way through the Stieg Larsson trilogy. However, lately I've been absorbed with legal documents and this blog. (he has made it clear that he's not interested in having me read motions for an emergency stay out loud to him). :)

  • 38. BradK  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Et tu, Yoo?

  • 39. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:23 am

    No, no, no. The Plaintiffs have 35 pages. That's us. the defendants have a 15 page limit. And to be honest with you, I don't think we will need the whole 35 pages. The Prop H8 supporters, on the other hand, will be crying about the lack of pages, saying they weren't given enough time or space to express their POV and their 'evidence."

  • 40. bJason  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:27 am

    An above post by Alan E.

    Plaintiff’s response in only 4 words:
    Show Me The Evidence

    This could be fun!

    Plaintiff’s response in only 4 words:

    Separate Church and State

    Due Process — Equal Protection

    Proponents: "I don't know."

    And finally:
    SUCK MY RING FINGER!!

    <3 Jason

  • 41. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:29 am

    1 Man or Woman

  • 42. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Because I said so

  • 43. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

    LOL at the mental image of you reading emergency motions to stay out loud to your BF!

  • 44. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Kathleen, many thanks for your taking care of us. Should be bake cookies for your boyfriend? (You won't get any 'cause you can't (shouldn't, really) read with cookies in your mouth.)

  • 45. Jill  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Just got a notice from the 9th Circuit website:

    Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of for – Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. Date of service: 08/13/2010. [7439895] (DP)

    Does this mean they are going to ask/force Jerry to take the case on behalf of the State?

  • 46. JefferyK  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:45 am

    "It’s surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply. But I wouldn’t read too much into this. They know that everyone anticipated the Motion and that everyone’s briefs are essentially written already."

    I think this is overly generous. If the shoe were on the other foot — it the proponents had just nine hours and the plantiffs had the entire weekend — religious conservatives would be screaming about bias at the top of their lungs.

  • 47. Alan E.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:46 am

    This is a very interesting read about the hypotheticals for many aspects of the case, from Walker's court to the Supreme Court and beyond.
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100809.html

  • 48. JefferyK  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here we go: The Ninth Circuit is going to bend over backwards to give the proponents standing to appeal.

  • 49. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:48 am

    I learned a 2-word phrase for that in the decision: ipse dixit!

  • 50. John D  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:50 am

    I read legal filings to my husband for our mutual entertainment. With Walker's decision, I only read the highlights, then he grabbed his computer and read the whole thing.

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:53 am

    EXTRA EXTRA Read all about it!!!

    We got a new Agenda item to add to our list of things to do.

    Get your lists out and write it down…scratch off the one that says 'redefine marriage' and in its place write 'Abolish Marriage' (I think it's around item number 300.) Unfortunately I will need to borrow notes from someone because my Agenda list is lost – I can't find it…but that's another story.

    Don't read any more if you are about to have dinner, have the spins from drinking too much, or have a weak stomach.

    Prop 8 case has implications for all Americans

    Sadly, radical partisans of the homosexual legal agenda — an agenda that ultimately supports not the redefinition of marriage, but the abolition of it — have become more and more willing to sacrifice all other freedoms for the sake of embracing sexual anarchy.

    Read all the drivel here: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?…

  • 52. nightshayde  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Indeed. It's tough to condense the Bible down to 15 pages.

  • 53. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Crap! I got married already and intend to stay married to my wife. Does that mean that I have to get rid of my toaster oven because I don't support the abolition of marriage? But being gay is such a fun little club of radical partisans!

  • 54. BradK  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:01 am

    The Bible can be condensed down to 3 words:

    "Thou Shall Not"

  • 55. Straight Dave  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:03 am

    muchos gracias, Kathleen!
    But I'm not sure I can stay up til 2am to see our team's shredding of the proponent's ghastly 95-page waste of virtual trees. They must have thought they got scored by the word. But every additional paragraph was one more demerit IMO.
    I'll have to settle for Sat breakfast reading.

    Personally, I would pay to watch you read their brief aloud while eating cookies, even if I'm sure I couldn't afford the fee you would be inclined charge.

  • 56. nightshayde  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Gosh darnit — that rag doesn't take comments. I was so ready to provide a Civics lesson.

    *pouts*

  • 57. Straight Dave  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:07 am

    God, I can't type for crap these days. I should stop trying. For being known as fastidious, I'm not holding up my end lately. Hope you all read well between the lines :)

  • 58. JC  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Yes, Kathleen, thank you very much for all you've done for us the past 8 months! (And I agree with the no reading with cookies–choking hazard! We neeeeeed you too much to risk that!)

  • 59. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Nobody told me I had to get out my riot clothes if things "didn't go my way." (they were all cleaned and pressed too)

  • 60. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Thanks Straight Dave – I'm pretty generous with my time when it comes to my friends. :) And, as you know, we're all very forgiving around here when it comes to spelling and grammatical blunders.

  • 61. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:28 am

    If you only knew what a blessing you are to all of us without legal training. You, Ann S. Trish, l8r_g8r and our other legal eagles have really been such a GREAT resource to the rest of us. I lost count back in January of how many mitzvahs you achieved.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I think it's just a formal acceptance of the earlier "Notice of Appearance of Counsel" submitted by Brown's office, indicating that Brown will be represented by Daniel J. Powell, of the California Dept. of Justice.

    What I'm not sure of is what to make of the fact that on the earlier notice, Brown is shown as a "Respondent." This would suggest that they're taking the side of the Plaintiffs. I'm hoping to get clarification on this.

  • 63. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:30 am

    "Tell Me More" !?! Wasn't that one of the songs in "Grease"? I will have to go to YouTube and find out.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:32 am

    You're all very kind. I won't even mention the offer of cookies to my bf. He would insist that I follow through. I've never met anyone with such a sweet tooth. When I first met him was practically living on sweets (w/ an occasional hot dog). I indulge him around the holidays, going on a baking spree that lasts several weeks. I'll just tell him that everyone sends their sympathies. :)

  • 65. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Yoo be illin'.

  • 66. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I also think Yoo is probably still pouting because even though he helped dream up the "rationale" for the torture, he did not himself get to actively participate in said torture. Sounds like a frustrated S&M addict to me.

  • 67. Be_devine  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Although Brown has not appealed, he's still a party to the case and can make arguments. I anticipate Brown will file a brief in support of the Plaintiffs (like he did at the trial court.) He needs to make an appearance before doing so, so this is just the mundane paperwork that allows him to electronically file his papers.

  • 68. Kate  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Fundraising idea: Sell mp3 files of Kathleen reading Judge Walker's ruling aloud!!!!!

  • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I actually have to reread this article…I have many questions about Kennedy now.

    What Will Anthony Kennedy Do on Gay Marriage?

    When Judge Vaughn Walker decided Thursday to restart gay marriage in California as of Aug. 18, he turned what had been a tactical headache for supporters of Proposition 8, the voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage two years ago, into a strategic aneurism. Last week, the only issue they had to worry about was the lousy record they had produced for the appeals courts. They now have much bigger worries after Judge Walker's suggestion that the only group that may be willing to appeal his decision striking down Prop 8—not the state, but ProtectMarriage.com, which defended Prop 8 at trial—may may lack standing to do so. As Walker put it, "Proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction." Emily Bazelon explains why the standing issue may derail the whole case. And if that happens, nobody will be happier than Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Read More: http://www.slate.com/id/2263792/

  • 70. JonT  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:56 am

    I must feast on SMTP packets!

  • 71. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Everything you wanted to know about marriage history…but were afraid to ask. I am a bit confused about France now.

    Philip Hensher: There's more to marriage than a contract between a man and a woman

    The understanding of marriage has altered considerably over time, and across cultures.

    The ancient Greeks prosecuted those who married beneath them, those who married too late, and those who did not marry at all – it was compulsory, like voting in Australia. In many parts of the world, partners in marriage may have met each other infrequently or not at all before their commitment; the decision to marry could rest on such factors as shared diet or the alignments of the stars. It might not be a decision made by the couple themselves, but by their families without consultation.

    Elsewhere, marriage is not even viewed as something undertaken by adults. In parts of the world, it is common for girls to marry before puberty – eight is not unheard of in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, and there are cases of babies being married to adults, although in these cases, "irrevocably promised in marriage" is usually closer to our understanding. We in 21st-century Western culture view marriage as founded, above all, on sexual compatibility. That would have been very surprising to previous ages, where the mariage blanc was a perfectly respectable possibility. In France, it is legally possible to marry a dead person, so long as the preliminary steps have been taken before the participant's death; in China, for reasons beyond the reach of all but the anthropologist, two dead people may be taken through a marriage
    ceremony. In Sudan, in 2006, a gentleman called Charles Tombe was required to marry a goat and pay a dowry of 15,000 dinars, after being discovered having sex with the animal.

    More: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators

  • 72. JC  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Just saw this document was filed from Imperial County. Need. Lawyer. Now!

    The following transaction was entered on 08/13/2010 at 4:27:22 PM PDT and filed on 08/13/2010
    Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
    Case Number: 10-16751
    Document(s): Document(s)

    Docket Text:
    Filed (ECF) Appellants County of Imperial, The Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial and Isabel Vargas Motion for miscellaneous relief [Joinder of Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Filed in Case No. 10-16696 on August 12, 2010]. Date of service: 08/13/2010. [7440113] (JLM)

  • 73. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Does this mean that the Southern Baptist convention is in imminent danger of apoplexy? That is what it sounds like to me. This really sounded like nothing more than a childish temper tantrum. And they really are going too far by claiming that Twitter feeds were predicting riots. Those Twitter feeds were probably from WBC saying that they were going to riot. Of course, I see that they haven't even come out of their hidey-hole yet.

  • 74. Be_devine  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:10 am

    I haven't read it yet, but it's just Imperial County asking to join in the Prop 8 supporters' motion for an emergency stay. Totally expected and not very consequential, except that Imperial County has a different standing argument than the Prop 8 supporters, but not necessarily a better one.

  • 75. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:11 am

    No, you can keep the toaster oven, Trish. But you can put any rainbow stickers on it now. LOL

  • 76. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Trish = l8r_g8r. You were away when I had my big coming out moment.

  • 77. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I just wanted to note that there will be a lot of ministerial filings in the next several months that won't really mean much. Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll all want to read them and analyze every word. I know I will. :)

  • 78. nightshayde  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Think of the children!

  • 79. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Oh, and thank you. Kathleen's doing all the work — I'm just sharing my thoughts.

  • 80. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:23 am

    On page nine there's a [grainy hard to see] picture of me with Justice Kennedy. We so have an IN! I totally know him.
    http://www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/publications/pa

    Or…

    Stood next to him in a picture once.

    Meh.

  • 81. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:25 am

    JC, if you just wait a few minutes after getting these notices, you will usually find a comment by me on the most recent post, prefaced by "UPDATE." It takes me a few minutes to download the document, upload it Scribd and get the link posted here.

    If you don't see anything in, say, 10 minutes, then you can assume I'm away from my computer. I also don't always post every notice. Sometimes they're just 'housekeeping' and of no real consequence. But if there's a motion or brief attached, I'm almost certain to post it here.

    Also, if you want to get documents as soon as they're uploaded, you could sign up to Scribd and "subscribe" to my uploads. I think you get notices as soon as something new is posted: http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

  • 82. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:28 am

    No napping!!!

  • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:29 am

    That's so cool! Make sure he knows everything that is going on ; )

  • 84. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Nice! :)

  • 85. Bolt  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:31 am

    LOL!

  • 86. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:33 am

    I know, huh? I was having a late afternoon nap on the day the Court issued the notice, saying the decision was due the next day. I awoke to at least a dozen emails from people wondering where I was. LOL.

  • 87. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Okay. When did you have your big moment? If it was on Tuesday, then, yes, I was away. We were getting interviewed in Raleigh that day wrt why marriage equality is so important.

  • 88. Bolt  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:43 am

    What is sexual anarchy? It sounds delightful.

  • 89. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:43 am

    And Trish, feel free to send a friend request on FB. You can find me on the Prop 8 Trial Trackers group. Just mention this site so I know it's you. Been getting quite a few lately from folks trying to get me to help with some iPhone scam.

  • 90. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I don't know…. It really comes down to who and what is damaged if there isn't a stay, and after reading the (g-awful) emergency request I came away wondering "Why do they care if LGB&T people are inconvenienced by some unnamed gray area?" If the State doesn't mind and those applying for licenses understand the "hazard," why would anyone give a donut hole for what the proponents cared about the other side's potential damages. They have to show how they'll be injured or damaged. And, 99 pages later, I still wanted to know.

  • 91. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Yes, I believe it was Tuesday. :) Friend request sent.

  • 92. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:48 am

    @Richard – Sorry about your facebook problems. I have people who keep trying to befriend me on facebook because they think I am Michelle Pfeifer (honestly, I don't see the resemblance). It's annoying trying to weed out who's who from a friend request. I now only take the ones who mention how they know me.

  • 93. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:48 am

    I downloaded it and saved it to my laptop. Now I will know it's you. Just got your FB request. Now, how long before we see you in SCOTUS robes?

  • 94. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Wow. I'm impressed…a hug and everyTHING!

  • 95. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I think that's the new term for what was billed as "the sexual revolution" in the 60's.

  • 96. Trish  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Ooo! New motion coming. *waits [im]patiently for Kathleen to upload it*

    Filed (ECF) – Edmund G. Brown, Jr. response opposing motion (,motion to stay lower court action).

  • 97. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:52 am

    they think we don't have a dominant sexual partner, we play the same role..boy are they mistaken!

  • 98. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Yes, new entry needed in the etiquette books: How to Politely ask "Do I know you?" when one receives mysterious facebook friend requests.

  • 99. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:54 am

    @ Trish: Friend request received. Will be confirming in just a few minutes.
    @ LLB: I see the resemblance. you could honestly portray a younger Michelle Pfeiffer when they do a movie on her life.

  • 100. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Gawd…my brain hurts…but I want more! Legal sadomasochism!

  • 101. Leo  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Well, Brown just did file a response (opposing the stay). Maybe Schwarzenegger will, too.

  • 102. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Whooo…I had signed up on the listserv earlier…I got my first email! I feel powerful now.

  • 103. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:02 am

    God bless Jerry Brown.

  • 104. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:06 am

    I generally post these on whatever is the most recent thread. The only exception is if a new post goes up while I'm in the middle of the update.

  • 105. MJFargo  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Kathleen, are you charged if we sign up to your Script page?

  • 106. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Equal justice under law.

  • 107. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Nope.

  • 108. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:31 am

    in China, for reasons beyond the reach of all but the anthropologist, two dead people may be taken through a marriage ceremony.

    Zombie wedding!!!

    In Sudan, in 2006, a gentleman called Charles Tombe was required to marry a goat and pay a dowry of 15,000 dinars, after being discovered having sex with the animal.

    It beats the Biblical punishment of death for both of them.

  • 109. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:31 am

    @Kathleen,
    While I love reading your comments and your interpretations of all this legal mumbo jumbo, I can just imagine how thrilling listening to the motions would be for someone who isn't following the case.
    During the trail my bf had a hard time dealing with my obsessionpreoccupation with P8TT… It blew up into a fight that ultimately ended the relationship… I ended up in a dark place, and stopped reading P8TT… But I'm healing and getting better and I'm back :)

    (note to self:ake sure my next bf is interested in fighting for equal rights)

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 110. Kathleen  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:50 am

    Oh, Andrew, I'm so sorry. I had no idea that had transpired. HUGS.

  • 111. Rick  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

    What baffles me is that the backers of Prop 8 (especially the Mormon Church) spent millions on the election, yet seem to have dropped the ball with the trial and now the stay, standing, and appeals phase.

  • 112. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:55 am

    That is so cool! And I heard him give a speech in person once! We are so there.

  • 113. Ann S.  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Andrew, I'm sorry that happened. Hugs from me, too.

  • 114. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Hey Trish, feel free to friend me on Facebook too. I am in both Richard and Kathleen's friend list (the barbie who looks a little like michelle pfeifer). Just tell me you are Trish from CC.

  • 115. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    @ AndrewPDX: I hate it that happened. And I know how it feels. I had someone leave me because I was too politically active. That is part of why I am so thankful I have BZ. We are both as politically active as our situation permits.

  • 116. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Yay! finally home and can now 'scribe :)

  • 117. Sheryl Carver  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    I'm sorry, too, Andrew. Sometimes it turns out that you don't know another person as well as you think you do. May the future hold much brightness for you!

    <3

  • 118. Fred  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    I am very pleased

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    We know that David and Ted are probably working on their document at the moment. I really need to find out what wine they were drinking in Colorado during the 'festival' (can't remember the name of the event at the moment.)

    I think I want to make sure I have a couple of bottles for the final days of this. They work so hard, like us and our straight allies. But we get to sleep when they can't. I want to make sure I toast them properly.

    Although I don't like wine, I would drink it in a toast to Boies/Olson.

  • 120. ChrisW  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Brown's opposition to motion for stay: Link from 9th Circuit website

  • 121. Sheryl  |  August 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Totally OT but wanted to share a funny story about being added as a facebook friend. I check out who their friends are. Anyway, happened upon a 2nd (or so) cousin whom I haven't seen for 35 or so years. Requested her, she added me. About two weeks later I get this message that says: "I Know you!." Thought that was pretty funny but pretty much confirmed that I'm not the only one that sees "oh, we have mutual friends, I'll accept the request."

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother with a wonderful son who just happens to be gay.

  • 122. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    I think it's when you make your own decisions about sex rather than letting a religion make them for you.

  • 123. Sheryl  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Decided I should read the drivel before making a comment. Now I have even more comments. Guess I need to start using Twitter, no one here mentioned anything about planned riots if Judge Walker had found for the Prop 8 supporters. These extremists sure know how to use language to play upon people's fears.

    Second. If they are going to base the definition of Marriage on Genesis, then they should be all for polygamy. Loved Pam's sign at the WV NOM Rally.

    So, abolition of marriage is the real goal. Now, if you don't really want to get married, why the heck did California (and other states) even need a constitutional amendment.

    Do these people really believe the drivel they write. Or is it just they they are making such a good living because they know how to push a person's emotional buttons?

    Sheryl, Mormon mother to a wonderful son who just happens to be gay

  • 124. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Fortunately I THINK they used to make a great living off of people's fear. The problem now is those people they were making money off of were a bit older than they wanted and some have since passed on – and didn't leave NOM/CHURCH in their wills like they did in the past.

    Me thinks they are a little PO'd.

  • 125. Dpeck  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    I don't think it's baffling at all. Regardles of how much money the spent on the 2008 vote, and regardless of how successful they may have been at convincing juuuuust enough of the people to vote yes on 8, they were doomed from the beginning once this trial started. They didn't drop the ball, they just had no case and there was nowhere to hide once they had to answer in court.

  • 126. AndrewPDX  |  August 13, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    LOL…

    "Oh no! Teh Gayz don't want marriage, so we better get an amendment to make sure they can't get married, and then blame them for everything."

    Yeah… the Southern BatshitsBaptists need to take some courses in logic.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 127. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 13, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Great article, Alan, thanks.

  • 128. Lynn E  |  August 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    BradK, I thought the same thing…. only the three words I came up with were "Do Unto Others."

  • 129. Gay Marriage Watch »&hellip  |  August 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    [...] Full Story from Courage Campaign [...]

  • 130. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    But I think Sheryl brought up another valid point, one that is very true with the Baptists. Yes, Sheryl, I do think they know which emotional buttons to push with their sheeple. After all, they installed them, so they should know them, right?

  • 131. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Especially after the release of "8: The Mormon Proposition," right, Dpeck?

  • 132. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 13, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    @ AndrewPDX: They can't take courses in logic. That's against their religion. It's an even bigger sin than dancing if you can think for yourself and don't follow the SBC blindly.

  • 133. Nola Watch  |  August 14, 2010 at 10:13 am

    add me to the email list please!

  • 134. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    I am kind of late to this party…have been following this TOO MUCH at Huffington Post.

    But I liked in the Prop H8 plea when they went off on some tangent about how the county clerk or someone had standing to bring the appeal. It seemed like they were saying, "Oh noes!! She will be the one handing out the marriage application as part of her administrative duties, and she may not be for it….so she's INVOLVED!!!!!!!!"

  • 135. Ninth Circuit Responds To&hellip  |  August 15, 2010 at 2:39 am

    [...] &#97&#114e m&#111&#118ing VERY quickly. B&#114i&#97n De&#118ine &#114ep&#111&#114ts &#97t Courage Campaig&#110: The Ni&#110th Circuit just issued a&#110 Order stati&#110g that the Plai&#110ti&#102&#102s’ [...]

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

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!