Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Judge orders Maj. Margaret Witt reinstated to Air Force

DADT trial

By Eden James

Wow. When the breaking news rains, it pours. Especially from federal courts:

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — A federal judge says the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a highly decorated flight nurse when it discharged her for being gay, and ordered that she be given her job back as soon as possible.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton issued his highly anticipated ruling Friday in the case of former Maj. Margaret Witt. She was discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays serving in the military and sued to get her job back.

More to come, including statements.

3:25pm: Update by Andy Kelley

Servicemembers United released the following statement, praising the court’s decision as an important next step in the legal struggle to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:”

“Yet another judge has taken yet another righteous, historic, and courageous stand against a discriminatory and unconstitutional law,” said Alexander Nicholson, founder and Executive Director of Servicemembers United. “Major Witt’s case is a clear-cut one in which her discharge itself actually harmed unit cohesion, morale, and combat readiness.” This legal victory against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law is the second this month, with a judge in Riverside, California previously declaring the entire “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law unconstitutional in a facial challenge to the law brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. Major Witt’s victory will apply only to her own discharge, but the precedent set with this decision and the previous appellate court ruling in this case on the standard to be used in deciding on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges all contribute to a significant shift in how courts appear to be viewing and treating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese added:

“By reinstating Major Witt, a decorated Air Force nurse discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ another federal court has demonstrated once again that this discriminatory law does not contribute to our nation’s security or defense,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Had Major Witt been discharged in any other circuit in the country, she would not had her day in court. It is time for Congress and the Administration to recognize that his failed law should be removed from the books once and for all.”

You can read the full text of U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton’s decision here:

Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, added that this ruling only serves to underscore the need for the Senate to take swift and decisive action to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:”

“This is a stunning victory for Major Witt and all gay and lesbian patriots serving our country today. Clearly federal courts are trending towards allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. It is only a matter of time before this happens throughout the armed forces, but these cases are slowly working their way through the legal process and it could well be years before there is finality in the courts. The favorable Witt decision, like the Log Cabin Republicans ruling, only underscores the urgent need for the Senate to take up repeal in the lame duck session.”

4:15pm update by Andy Kelley

In related news, the Log Cabin Republicans released the following statement criticizing the Justice Department’s decision to appeal US District Judge Virginia Phillips’ ruling earlier this month, declaring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional:

“The Justice Department’s objections fail to recognize the implications of the government’s defeat at the trial. It is as if the South announced that it won the Civil War,” said Dan Woods, White & Case attorney who is representing the Log Cabin Republicans. “The objections also fail to mention that the court has previously denied the government’s requests for a stay on three prior occasions and nothing has changed to suggest that a stay is now appropriate; if anything, the Senate vote this week shows that the court was correct in denying the prior requests for a stay. But what is most troubling is that the government’s request for a stay ignores the harm that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell causes to current and potential members of our Armed Forces. That is the saddest, most disappointing, and, in light of the President’s position, most hypocritical part of the objections.”

You can read their full legal response below:

486 Comments

  • 1. bJason  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Excellent!!

  • 2. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Just totally awesome! Looking for the decision document now…

  • 3. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:45 am

    and subscribing

  • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:45 am

    subscribing, and a big hug and congrats to Margaret

  • 5. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Nurse Witt, you are a healer of more than broken bodies.

  • 6. Dave P.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Yeah! Great news on a Friday afternoon.

  • 7. DB  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Please pardon my french but f'ing awesome!!!

  • 8. DB  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:50 am

    scribe

  • 9. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:51 am

    AWESOME!!!!

  • 10. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:53 am

    6th major decision for LGBT citizens this year!

    1: DOMA 1
    2: DOMA 2
    3: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
    4 Perry v. Schwarzenegger
    5: Florida gay adoption ban
    6: Now Witt!

    On another note, yet another brief filed.

  • 11. JonT  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Fan-freaking-tastic :)

  • 12. Freddy  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Awesome, what's the pentagon going to say about this one?

  • 13. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:56 am

    HOO…RAH!!!!!….. : ) ….Ronnie

  • 14. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:57 am

    FANTASTIC NEWS!!

  • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:57 am

    oh the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • 16. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:58 am

    UPDATE (in Perry). You knew the Catholics had to join in.

    Amicus brief of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops et al. in support of Proponents (Appellants) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38097592

  • 17. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 7:58 am

    And STILL forgot to subscribe.

  • 18. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Merci beaucoup! ooo and it's 50 pages, too. Longest one today (that's what she said…or he said).

  • 19. James UK  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Fabulous!

  • 20. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Brief of Amici Curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; California Catholic Conference; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; Calvary Chapel Fellowship of Ministries of California; The Christian and Missionary Alliance; Coral Ridge Ministries; The Council of
    Korean Churches in Southern California; Southern California Korean Ministers Association; Holy Movement for America

  • 21. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:04 am

    That's Anglo-Saxon actually, DB. :)

  • 22. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

    But, you know, it's not a religious thing.

  • 23. 415kathleenk  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Hooray for the Witt decision.
    I just glanced at the new amicus brief
    usual suspects
    Catholics
    Evangelicals
    Mormons

    and the usual drivel dressed up in legalese

  • 24. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Dare we hope that a favorable Perry ruling at the Ninth Circuit will be Lucky Number Seven?? In time for the holidays, even?

  • 25. Don in Texas  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Can't wait to read Judge Leighton's decision.

  • 26. Michelle Evans  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Gee, maybe I should join up again!

  • 27. fiona64  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Oh, no. It's not about religion at all. It's about teh childrun …

    Or not.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 28. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:12 am

    What animates the Supreme Court’s insistence on these limitations is much broader than the need to keep courts out of an area where they lack institutional
    competence. Its more basic concern is the constitutional bar against government taking sides on the rightness of religious beliefs. As a matter of principle and prudence, neither the state nor its judges may endorse or condemn particular
    religious beliefs.

    Amicus Brief REJECTED

  • 29. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Um….yeah. And?

  • 30. Freddy  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:14 am

    I wonder if we should feel sorry for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as they are being over run by Teh Gayz!

  • 31. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:15 am

    As a matter of principle and prudence, neither the state nor its judges may endorse or condemn particular
    religious beliefs.

    Sure they can. Here is an example.

    Religious Zealot: I think that woman is a witch and must be burned alive, for my bible tells me so.

    Judge: WTF?! No! SMACKDOWN

  • 32. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Who was talking about their religious beliefs? Not Walker. Not Pugno. Not Boies. Not Olson.

    No one was talking about their religious beliefs.

  • 33. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Alan, that's when they scream about how they're being OPPRESSED!

  • 34. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Congrats to Ms Witt. Sue baby sue!
    I would love to sue the Catholic and LDS church's for defamation of character and slander!
    But I know their rights as religions trumps my rights as an American. So wrong!
    May I have more mail please?

  • 35. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:20 am

    This short comic says it all:
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pid=387305&a

  • 36. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Alan, very funny!

  • 37. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:22 am

    ROTFLMGAYAO…… X) ….Ronnie

  • 38. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Alan, I see that Scribd also got you to post to facebook (I thought perhaps I had accidentally clicked on something when it asked me to Allow to share what I am reading on facebook.

  • 39. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I love that this — during THIS week, of all weeks — makes the whole DOMA mess have egg on its face.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear…………

  • 40. AndrewPDX  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:25 am

    subscribing… busy day @ work (damned four-letter word that it is).

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 41. Straight Dave  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Actually, they're about to be overrun by the anti-Gayz because we keep winning at lower levels. I hope the court finally gets sick of all these worthless bad-faith appeals and becomes a lot less inclined to order stays that don't really meet the tough standards laid down by SCOTUS. I can't wait for the onus to shift over to where it belongs, on the Constitution violators who are causing the real harm.

    Happy Friday, Maj. Margaret Witt, and everybody else. It's been a damn good year so far. Enjoy it while you can, but remember that most of these steps are still tentative. The real cheering comes when some of them start getting carved in stone for all eternity.

  • 42. bJason  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Here is the opinion:
    http://www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/attach

  • 43. CaliGirl  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Whoo! This almost makes up for the cloture fail. I start this weekend with a smile. :)

  • 44. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Back to the Religious argument. What about the Millions of people whose religion supports Marriage Equality?

  • 45. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Let's see how they rule before we start feeling sorry for them. If they do the right thing and uphold these rulings, then I'll feel sorry for the, because they'll take a lot of heat for doing so.

    Until then….jury's out, as it were.

  • 46. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Grr I just updated the application settings. I don't want to remove the app so I can continue to get stuff quickly, but I hate that it is sending those messages to my wall.

  • 47. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:29 am

    And we need more celebratory music from Carmen Jones, methinks!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2PezsiMOE4

  • 48. Ed  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:31 am

    People who misunderstand the role of the judicial branch really boggle me. There is a reason for the 3 separate branches of government. I read a post by someone who said "…judges cannot overrule Congress….".
    Sweetie, they can, and they do (as we are seeing now…)

    This all reminds me of the movie, The Firm, with Tom Cruise. Does anyone remember how he was actually able to win at the end? Mail fraud against the firm. The point I am trying to make here is that no one actually considers mail fraud to be that serious, but it has TEETH.
    The same can be said of the judicial branch. A lot of people don't consider this branch to be all that serious (or carrying equal weight as the legislative and executive branches do), but it has TEETH!

    Wonderful victory in a (hopefully long) string of victories!

  • 49. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:34 am

    WOOT!

  • 50. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:34 am

    To the contrary, it was Major Witt’s suspension and ultimate discharge that
    caused a loss of morale throughout the squadron.</blockquote

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Which is understandable. I can't wait to see the Religious Conservatives and Senator's reactions.

  • 52. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:38 am

    The men and women of the
    United States military have over the years demonstrated the ability to accept diverse peoples into their
    ranks and to treat them with the respect necessary to accomplish the mission, whatever that mission might
    be. That ability has persistently allowed the armed forces of the United States to be the most professional,
    dedicated and effective military in the world. The reinstatement of Major Margaret Witt will not erode
    the proficiency of the United States military.

  • 53. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:39 am

    The possibility of such push back is off-set by the known negative impact of DADT upon the
    military: the loss of highly skilled and trained military personnel once they have been outed and the
    concomitant assault on unit morale and cohesion caused by their extraction from the military. In this
    regard, the Court notes the Army’s policy of deploying openly gay or lesbian personnel if the discharge
    process has not yet begun when the order to deploy issues. (Exh. 121). In this time of war, the Army, at
    least, has decided that allowing openly gay service is preferable to going to war without a member of a
    particular unit.

    This was brought up in the LCR case, too.

  • 54. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:41 am

    For the reasons expressed, the Court concludes that DADT, when applied to Major Margaret Witt,
    does not further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. If
    DADT does not significantly further an important government interest under prong two of the three-part
    test, it cannot be necessary to further that interest as required under prong three. Application of DADT
    therefore violates Major Witt’s substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United
    States Constitution. She should be reinstated at the earliest possible moment.

    Another 5th Amendment Due Process citation!

  • 55. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Finally, the evidence establishes that Major Witt received due process in the procedures that were
    followed by the Air Force Reserves.1 She received notice of the charges and a full opportunity to present
    evidence and to challenge the charge against her. Witt’s procedural due process claim is DISMISSED.

    So they didn't accept both arguments because she was honorably discharged. That still doesn't take away from the first due process claim against DADT itself. This second claim was based on how she was discharged.

  • 56. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:47 am

    So in the end, the judge said that Witt can be reinstated, but since she doesn't meet the current qualifications to be a nurse, she has to work to meet those standards again to be reinstated to the same position. This argument makes sense and is totally fair.

  • 57. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:48 am

    There's also a separate document – the judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. I sent it to both Alan and Eden. Hopefully, one of them can upload it somewhere and post a link. If I have a another volunteer to do that, let me know, I'll send it to you. (trying to keep my Scribd account to Perry docs)

  • 58. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Oh, see that has both docs. Good!

  • 59. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:49 am

    YAY!!!

  • 60. James UK  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:51 am

    In lay terms, the USAF in dismissing Major Witt was wrong from the get-go.

  • 61. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Yes, but how they let her go was not wrong.

  • 62. DazedWheels  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Hi Kathleen! Hugs! :-)

  • 63. fiona64  |  September 24, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Remember, folks, Al Capone was sent to Alcatraz for *tax evasion.*

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 64. Ed  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:02 am

    thats the point I was trying to make, fiona :)
    little things can carry huge weight

  • 65. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Statement from Judge Leighton after the Margaret Witt trial

    After ruling that retired Major Margaret Witt, a lesbian Air Force Reserve officer, should be reinstated to her unit, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton on Friday made the following comments from the bench:

    After ruling that retired Major Margaret Witt, a lesbian Air Force Reserve officer, should be reinstated to her unit, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton on Friday made the following comments from the bench:

    Major Witt, you and I are unlikely to see one another again, in this context, anyway. I'd like to make a couple of points before you go:

    1) I hope you will request reinstatement with the Air Force Reserves and the 446th [her unit]. You will provide the best evidence that open service of gays and lesbians will have no adverse effect on cohesion, morale or readiness in this or perhaps any Air Force or military unit.

    2) You have been and continue to be a central figure in a long-term, highly charged civil-rights movement. That role places extraordinary stresses on you, I know. Today, you have won a victory in that struggle, the depth and duration of which will be determined by other judicial officers and, hopefully soon, the political branches of government. You said something in the trial that resonated with me. You said the best thing to come out of all this turmoil is the reaction of your parents when you told them of your sexual orientation: their love and support for you.

    More: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2

  • 66. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Number two made me cry!

  • 67. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Ditto!

  • 68. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Um – that makes seven, doesn't it? I don't see LCR on your list?

  • 69. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Me too! (and WTG Judge Leighton).

    BTW, Leighton was nominated to the federal bench by GWB – no doubt another raging liberal activist judge. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_B._Leighton

  • 70. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Then he can refuse care and die for his cause, like so many GLBT people have over the years.

  • 71. Dr. Brent Zenobia  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Hm, I wonder why the Southern Baptists aren't on that list. Maybe they'll be filing their own. I can't imagine they'd let this occasion pass without weighing in. (Maybe they didn't want their name to appear along side the Catholics and Mormons.)

  • 72. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Dr. Zenobia – or perhaps the Catholic Church willfully kept out the SBC

  • 73. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:15 am

    I want to go back to those good old days of traditional values when the Mormons, Catholics and Southern Baptists all spent their time fighting each other instead of this new fangled modern stuff of joining forces against the rest of us.

  • 74. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Gah you're right!

  • 75. fern  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Ah qu'en termes galants ces chose là sont dites!
    Molière, le Misanthrope, scène 1 acte 1.

  • 76. Straight Dave  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Then he can just effing bleed to death on the chopper if he's that picky. Leave it to him to decide.

    My role in the Air Force was air rescue and recovery. Pull guys out of trouble, lift them into the back of the chopper, let the medics attend to them, and get the hell to a hospital. There wasn't much complaining or checking of "membership cards" going on.

    There are no bigots in foxholes, and no bigots in rescue helicopters, either.

  • 77. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:24 am

    The Baptists are too busy with damage control for Bishop Eddie Long, probably.

  • 78. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Margaret Witt on Rachel Maddow

  • 79. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:26 am

    *high fives Straight Dave* Great minds think alike, I reckon.

  • 80. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Oh my yes!

  • 81. Spencer Wulwick  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:35 am

    KUDOS MAJOR WITT!!!!

    Now, perhaps, John McCain's son won't have to be discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

    AFTER ALL, WHO KNOWS?!!!!

  • 82. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Everyone, a new job has just opened up at my work, and I thought I would send the description your way. It is a high-profile job that will require a lot of work and experience, but if you qualify and are interested, I would highly recommend you apply. It's for a Project Manager position for the Golden Gate Bridge 75th Anniversary. Here is the job description:
    https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1R4721tt

    The best requirement, in my opinion, is this:

    feel comfortable walking outdoors along the trails of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area

  • 83. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Rats, I can't access the document. Not that I'm qualified, just curious.

    I am, however, comfortable walking outdoors along the trails of the GGNCRA. That's probably the only qualification for the job that I possess.

  • 84. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Same here, Ann. LOL. (oh, oh. Seems I'm back to following behind you, agreeing. :) )

  • 85. DazedWheels  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Same here, too. Unqualified, but curious. :-)

  • 86. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Only when I'm not following behind you, agreeing!

  • 87. DazedWheels  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:51 am

    "Same here, too"?
    Me = redundant. Sigh.

  • 88. Bill  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Does anyone know if Ms. Witt will receive back pay from when she was discharged until she is re-instated?

    If not, she should sue for that, too.

    That would be over 4 years of salary due to her.

    And this being America and all, I do believe that once discriminating against gays starts costing the government and its citizens millions and millions of dollars, only then will they 'voluntarily' stop it.

  • 89. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:58 am

    er…lucky number Eight?

  • 90. nightshayde  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:01 am

    I don't think I have it in me to read this right now — but this jumped out at me from the table of contents:

    The Validity of Proposition 8 Cannot Be Judged Based

    on the Religious Convictions of Some of Its Supporters.

    Um — isn't that pretty much what a lot of us have been saying?

  • 91. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Congratulations to Major Witt and our justice system. It's overdue but very welcome.

  • 92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Another victory against DADT and Discrimination.

  • 93. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Kathleen, it's good to have you back so that we can follow each other around agreeing!

  • 94. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Agreed. :)

  • 95. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:19 am

    ;)

  • 96. Alan E  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I'll have to change it at home. I forgot to make it a public document.

  • 97. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:38 am

    NARTH has just filed, but I'm going to wait for Kathleen to upload it.

  • 98. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:42 am

    NARTH's argument: "Um, we can't have gay people be married because then they might be happy, secure, and socially validated and that would be tough on our business model."

  • 99. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:44 am

    UPDATE: Another…

    Amicus brief by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson in support or Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 09/24/2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38103530

  • 100. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:47 am

    UPDATE: Every creepy organization out there is crawling out of the woodwork. This one's from NARTH.

    Amicus brief by NARTH in support of Proponents (Appellants). http://www.scribd.com/doc/38103625

  • 101. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Can't wait for someone to translate this one for us!

  • 102. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:58 am

    They have included the County of Imperial in theirs as an appellant…did I miss something?

  • 103. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Anything the National Association for Rape & Torture of Homosexuals has to say should be thrown in the round file since they have been fully discredited based on George "Rent a boy" Rekers, the amount of failures they have had out weigh those who suppress their true nature & force themselves into the closet, the history of suicide attempts as well as mental & physical harm their Fascist cult group has caused, the lack creditable medical & professional backing, & the fact that NONE of their pod people identify as heterosexual…therefore….STFU YOU ABTI-GAY/ANTI-AMERICAN FASCIST PIGS….. >( ….Ronnie

  • 104. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:03 am

    I would like to submit my life story as a counter to NARTH!

  • 105. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:03 am

    JONAH cited them enough that they don't need a brief.

  • 106. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Research and reports from a century of experience suggest some people can and do experience changes in sexual orientation.

    Has anyone explained to NARTH that there are bisexuals?

  • 107. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:12 am

    NARTHs Attorney: Gary G. Kreep

  • 108. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:14 am

    LOL! I hadn't noticed that before. How fitting!

  • 109. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:17 am

    UPDATE: Now we hear from our old 'friends' PJI!

    Amicus brief by Pacific Justice Institute in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 09/24/2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38104502

  • 110. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:18 am

    He's hiding something:
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03

  • 111. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:18 am

    points & laughs…….. hhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah …..hehehehehe…cough..cough…..hahahahahahaha…..ROFL…..

    Does the "G"..stand for Gay or Girl?….or maybe its

    wait for it……..

    GOT-CHA!!!!….. X) …Ronnie

  • 112. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Another one, gonna wait for Kathleen….

    Pacific Justice Institute.

  • 113. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:21 am

    oh, this one is good…

    And wouldn’t a beautiful boy or young man be useful insofar as he is
    beautiful?
    …Yes.
    He is useful for sexual intercourse

    I might want to read this one later…lol

  • 114. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:25 am

    LLB, I hadn't noticed that they included the IC case in their title page (I've been so busy handling the clerical stuff that I haven't had a chance to read much).

    Technically, Imperial County is also an appellant. They are appealing both Walker's decision in the case and his denial of their request to intervene. The Court has given the IC case appeal a separate case number, but has set the same briefing schedule for the two cases and will be hearing the two cases together. This brief was filed under the main case number.

  • 115. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:30 am

    The NARTH one appears to be full of self-reported success stories and statistics of therapists who have "cured" people of their gayness.

  • 116. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Kathleen, I do want to give you a special thank you for being so patient with us (me). So many things I don't understand…and some of these briefs are inarticulate – but never dull!

    Thank you.

  • 117. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:31 am

    So far, I think the FRC brief has been the most intellectually challenging one (but not to give it too much credit). These so far today make me want to bang my head on the wall.

  • 118. Leo  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:32 am

    <cite>There is controversy as to whether male homosexuality began in Indo European-Minoa, in Sparta, or in Crete.</cite>

    LOL. Assuming they are talking about human male homosexuality, I'm pretty sure it began in Africa.

  • 119. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:34 am

    The Children of Hamm? Then according to the logic of the bible, the blacks caused gayness. That gives us reason to discriminate against them again!

    [please read this as entirely sarcastic and through the eyes of a religious fundie]

  • 120. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Not a problem! I just wish I had more time to analyze all these. PLEASE – always ask questions, even if you think they've been answered before. I know not everyone catches all the comments. I'm just glad this is a question I could answer – there are so many I can't. :)

  • 121. MJFargo  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:36 am

    That is so remarkable. Thanks, LLB, for posting this.

  • 122. Ray in MA  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Alan, I know someone in SF who may be interested and very qualified… can you get us thru to that link?

  • 123. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Part of me wants to quit reading these, but the other part of me is curious to see how low they will go. It's like watching a limbo match after you've already lost and just standing around waiting to see who will finally win so the party can get away from the stupid game where the people holding the pole are totally cheating.

  • 124. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:39 am

    I love it when they try to get all scholarly and stuff. :)

  • 125. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:41 am

    According to this one, we are all pedophiles.

  • 126. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:43 am

    https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1R4721tt

    Sorry I thought it went through. Here you go.

  • 127. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I am done reading them all…but probably easy since I don't understand half of it, I have no need to contemplate ; )

  • 128. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Oh Alan, I love you!

  • 129. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:47 am

    I can vouch that the NARTH one is completely boring. Doesn't even rate potted-plant status.

  • 130. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Regrettably there is insufficient space to discuss great civilizations from the East relative to laws on marriage and the family, along with views on homosexuality.

    Thank goodness!

  • 131. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:50 am

    LOL. They're apparently depending on the Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."

  • 132. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:51 am

    This one would actually be sort of interesting, if it wasn't all researched for such a base purpose.

  • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:52 am

    They weren't finished with that though…

    There is regrettably insufficient space in these pages to provide biographical sketches of intellectual giants that are quoted in herein. Those sketches would reveal that they had colleagues, friends, family members who were homosexual. Indeed, some of these men were themselves gay.

  • 134. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:53 am

    I wonder if they wanted to include inkblots!

  • 135. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:55 am

    From the description of the importance of marriage in ancient Rome:

    Fathers could kill adulterous daughters and
    partners and husbands were required to divorce adulterous wives.

    Wonder if they're advocating a return to these laws??

  • 136. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Likely so; this is called the Proof of the Good Old Days. (Let's all now break out in a chorus of Ol' Black Joe.)

  • 137. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Is that a new way of saying 'the dog ate my homework'?

  • 138. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:59 am

    A break from all the reading…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S8ZrQG0y6g

  • 139. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Oh, boy another one….whooot….more ick.

  • 140. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    From the States of Indiana, Virginia and others. Ugh.

  • 141. Leo  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    "States of Indiana, Virginia et al."
    Might be more interesting than the others.

  • 142. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    I am beginning to think Judge Walker's ruling was very powerful and the religious richt is scared.

  • 143. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    LLB, you're right. My first reaction was that it is none of their business, and then I realized that they, too, expect this to go to the SCOTUS and become the law of the land. So they iz askeered.

  • 144. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    UPDATE: Okay, this is getting silly….

    Amicus brief by States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming in support of Proponents (Appellants). http://www.scribd.com/doc/38105843

  • 145. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Okay, before I read this one…I want to give another Standing 'O' to the Boies – Olson team. WOW

  • 146. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Utah! What a surprise.

  • 147. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Oh, and whilst we are reading, Kathleen can download the new one from the American College of Pediatricians.

  • 148. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    OK I might not be on here for a couple days. I have plenty to read now. See you all on Sunday.

  • 149. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    UPDATE: Amicus brief by American College of Pediatricians in support of Proponents (Appllants). http://www.scribd.com/doc/38105916

  • 150. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Right off the bat, the table of contents reveals that they are calling Judge Walker's reasoning "incoherent".

    No, I don't think so.

  • 151. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Oooh, didn't see that one coming. I don't think I'm gonna like this.

  • 152. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    They sound like they're real, but they're a fringe group of folks who can't abide by the serious scientists. Read all about them here: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/re-gill-

  • 153. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Aw, but Alan, there's bound to be more. It's not midnight yet! There must be a few whack orgs out there who haven't weighed in. :)

  • 154. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Lesbian Mothers, Gay Gathers and Their Children;

    Right off the bat, I'm already feeling better abou this one.

  • 155. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Oh, how can I have forgotten about them? Can I blame my head cold again?

    This is the mainstream organization: http://www.aap.org/

  • 156. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    LOL, even with the bolding I had a hard time figuring out what you were talking about! The mind can do funny things when skimming.

  • 157. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    We haven't heard from the Klan or WBC yet! Hurry, hurry, folks, there are still many hours for you to get in on the fun.

  • 158. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    According to this one, it's better to have one parent than two. Cause stepparents are really really 'kreep's'

  • 159. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    My first thought was it was one of those alleged gay recruiting groups (the Gay Gatherers)

  • 160. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Do are the Real peds going to stick up for US?

  • 161. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Make that "So" not Do.

  • 162. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Oh, and you shouldn't have children unless you make serious money…cause your kid's gonna need serious psychological help if you back this group.

  • 163. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    I figure about now, Charles Cooper is thinking "with friends like these, who needs enemies."

  • 164. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    The PJI brief is a riot!

    So far all I have gotten out of this is that homosexuality is older than marriage and that (and I quote…)

    "Adversaries used oratory to convince juries who were primarily members of poorer classes. In oder to appeal to popular prejudice, opponents attacked each other's character and without evidence and using inference, accused each other…"

    THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING THIS!!!

  • 165. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    I'm quite certain they will. They did in the district court. They were one of several professional medical organization that submitted amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs.

  • 166. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    I am going to guess three more for tonight and we are done.

    I am not a betting woman…but I bet 3…any takers?

    No money, just bragging rights though!

  • 167. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    oder -> order

  • 168. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    shhh. about the recruiting groups, we might lose our Home Depot points.

  • 169. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Oder makes it more plausible though

  • 170. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Ha — I thought it was THEIR type, Felyx, and it made it really funny!

  • 171. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    "Socrates was, in 399 B. C., condemned to death for corrupting the youth and denying the gods of the city."

    Yeah Socrates!!!

  • 172. Don in Texas  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Someone should read the great Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison in which he declared it is "emphatically" the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review which gives the courts the power to overturn unconstitutional laws.

  • 173. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    End of page 7 beginning of 8, to paraphrase, 'Gay sex is way better than straight sex…'!!!

    Man these people are obsessed with gay sex! Do you suppose the whole of PJI will get caught with each others pants down?… !!!

  • 174. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    I wondered about that. Do the attorneys know who is going to file one of these gumball machine legal papers? Shouldn't the attorneys decide who they want speaking? And something else I've been wondering — can anyone give a good estimate of how much $$$ this has cost the DIs to this point? I can't imagine all these brilliant amicus briefs come cheaply…….

  • 175. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    The Supreme Court has long recognized that authority over the institution of marriage lies with the states.

    someone needs to tell them about Loving v. Virginia

  • 176. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Perry – keeping jobs alive in America!

  • 177. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    After commenting that gay sex is the way awesomerist sex of all they go on to explain straight marriage and divorce…

    "But if their erotic relationship is characterized by an exchange of advantage rather than pleasure, the two are less friendly toward each other and the friendship lasts less long."

    No mention of procreation yet…

  • 178. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    The DIs don't pay, you know. It's up to each party filing to pay if they want to hire an attorney (some clearly didn't).

    Hard to say what the cost would be, some were done in-house and some no doubt by expensive firms, some attorneys might have donated their time. There's no telling.

  • 179. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    I think that, as far as what's allowed, once the parties have consented to the filing of amicus briefs, any whack job is allowed to submit one of these. As a practical matter, I don't know how much coordination goes on between these amaci and the party they're supporting.

    Maybe one of the attorney here with appellate experience can give us some insight.

  • 180. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Caution Is Appropriate When Using Social Science Data To Inform Judicial Decision-making

    The foregoing discussion reflects an attempt to present to the Court pertinent social science data concerning parenting models and family structure. But caution
    should be used when interpreting and relying upon such data in the course of resolving a legal dispute. Social science involves assessments of averages, probabilities, and aggregate outcomes, usually in connection with complex aspects of human behavior where it is difficult to identify, let alone control for, all of the pertinent variables that might affect the outcomes under review.

    I think the courts are going to recognize this for what it is…bull.

    Take the header…Caution Is Appropriate When Using Social Science Data To Inform Judicial Decision-making and change it to "Caution is Appropriate when Using Social Science Data to Inform Parenting."

  • 181. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    "However, Greece did not inherit nor develop a belief that a divine poser had revealed to mankind a code of regulation of sexual behavior and had no religious institutions to enforce sexual prohibitions."

    So then, A, Greek society was way cool and B, you are in effect admitting that it is the religious bigots who are imposing their wills on otherwise normal healthy people.

    At first I was thinking this was a totally rejectable brief, but now I see that it is really making some good points!

  • 182. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Question from a Gallery member…

    This is supposed to be reviewed by a three member judge panel (don't know that actual verbage) right?

    Because of 'all this interest' does anyone think they might consider reviewing by more judges?

  • 183. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Arghh! Again, poser -> power

  • 184. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    again, poser would have been better for their argument!

  • 185. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Procreation at the top of page 12. All I gotta say is, 'Attaboy!'

  • 186. Tomato  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    It has already cost 1.3 billion.

  • 187. Joel  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    "My left arm has been blown off and there's a gash in my head bigger than a mail slot, but before you treat me, I'd like to know, are you a lesbian?"

  • 188. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    "…men must marry by the age of 30 or face prosecution."

    Great, so first men can't get married to each other and if they don't they get prosecuted! Those were the ancient ol' days by Gods!!!

  • 189. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Will They be able to file more amici after the DIs file their Answer in Nov?

  • 190. Bill  |  September 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    I was aware of the costs of implementing the law. I was more speaking to whether or not Witt and any future reinstated service people will be due their salary or some form of compensation for their wrongful termination.

  • 191. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    BTW, none of these arguments were made C.E.

    And here I though they had already used up all the out of date arguments!

    "Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.[E.]) considered marriage a natural partnership of person and property of husmand and wife."

    Actually if you read his oratory that is not exactly what he said. A more fitting translation would have been something nearer, 'Cicero considered the marriage deed as uniting to the man his property and that of his wife.' (Wife is not in the possessive case here!) Anyway, not shocked, these are the same people who try to interpret the Bible without accidentally doing any peer reviewablescholarly work.

  • 192. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Dag nabbit! husmand -> husband

    (and a space after reviewable)

  • 193. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    These people have grown up convinced by claims that the bible says sex is bad and dirty, and no pleasure should be taken in it, and women are at fault and that's why childbirth hurts (by this logic, Satan invented the epidural, apparently.) So they just FLIP OUT at the thought of someone having sex (much less sexual pleasure) without guilt, shame, or the consequences of childbirth/pain. And apparently, they think about it a lot.

    Inwardly, subconsciously, they are trembling with rage and jealousy about that. Thus all this histrionic posturing. They just can't deal with their own harshly sublimated sex drives when society says, "No actually, sex is okay." Thus all these passionate pleas to destroy liberality and equality in society so they can go back to their perverse and constrained sex lives with their skewed gender roles.

    The one thing I'm waiting for–though I fear I will be disappointed–is for one of their heads to literally explode. This explosion, along with global warming et al, will be blamed on Teh Gayzes, but that goes to show you the hazards of holding it in, eh?

    BOOM.

  • 194. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    If I'm understanding the rules of procedure I'm reading, it's allowed only if the court gives permission and permission is not generally given. Again, maybe someone with appellate experience can speak to this.

  • 195. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    Now that I read it again… maybe I would prefer to be husman'd! Hehehe!

  • 196. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    The court can decide to do this on its own, even without the parties asking for it, but I THINK that decision would have been made by now if they were going to. IIRC, the panel has already been selected, even though the names won't be made public until about a week before oral arguments.

  • 197. Joel  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    LLB, there is recent evidence to support the claim that sexual orientation can change over a lifetime. That change, however, is not a change that is effected by a conscious choice. The best analogy would be hair or eye color, which can also change over the course of a lifetime, but cannot be changed by conscious choice (and before you snarky guys take me down, I don't mean Clairol and contact lenses, LOL).

    I was a towheaded blond (is that redundant?) when I was a toddler. It gradually darkened to strawberry blond, then to brown, and now of course, gray. My eyes changed color over the years too, but I never decided they change; they just did.

  • 198. Ronnie  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    wait?!…..What?…… : – / …..Ronnie

  • 199. Joel  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    I have the heart of a child….

    on a jar on my desk…

  • 200. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    "Marriage this has a purpose for the individual (i.e. procreation). … That is logically why homosexual relationships were not given the same status or nomenclature of "marriage." "

    In Nursing we have a saying, 'Not Documented Not Done'.

    If no one actually stated that this was the reason status was not granted then it cannot be absolutely determined to be so. It can be reasonably argued that the society had prejudices and that no one came forward and asked for the right.

    We are coming forward for the first time and asking, for the first time, for the right. If there is no documentation that anyone ever asked, then there is no reason to assume that it would never have been granted.

    Furthermore, that was then and this is now!

  • 201. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    BTW, none of these arguments were made C.E.

    But when you're basing your animus against Teh Geyz on the Old Testament, these arguments are positively modern, n'est-ce pas?

  • 202. allen  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    I laughed when I read husmand :)

  • 203. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    UPDATE: Yet more..

    Amicus brief by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Proponents (Appellants) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38107589

  • 204. Joel  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    There ain't no such thang as "gay sex." There's just sex. There is not a single sexual act that is practiced exclusively by homosexuals.

  • 205. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Very cool!

  • 206. Leo  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    From Becket Fund's brief:
    <cite>Proposition 8 was a rational response by California voters to the threat of religious liberty posed by the California Supreme Court's decision to promulgate same-sex marriage without conscience protections.</cite>

    Now, suppose, for the sake of argument, that a state, somehow, somewhere, legalizes Practice X without appropriate protections for people who object to Practice X. Which of these is a rational response?
    a. Enact the missing protections.
    b. Enact a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on Practice X.

  • 207. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Just trying to post.

  • 208. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Horrific arcane marriage laws that would never ever fly nowadays begins at the end of page 14.

    On 15 there is a statement to the fact that anyone can procreate but marriage was granted "to enjoy perfect companionship and mutual love."

    OMG! It's another Blankenhorn testimony!! I'm not kidding!

    And at the end of 15 we sum it all up with he who destroys marriage "…destroys the home, the city and the whole human race."!!!

  • 209. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Those sketches would reveal that they had colleagues, friends, family members who were homosexual. Indeed, some of these men were themselves gay. In this sense they are not unlike the voters of California.

    Heeey wait a minute!! Did PJI just call the voters of California GAY??? Isn't that worse that us calling them "bigots"?

  • 210. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Cool!!

  • 211. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    UPDATE:
    Amicus brief by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of Proponents (Appellants) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38108027/CA9Doc-64

  • 212. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    UPDATE:
    Amicus brief by National Legal Foundation in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 9/24/2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38109277

  • 213. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Leaving out, of course, that at least one of those Greek/Roman marriage mandates was initiated after the population had been depleted by war, and couples HAD to have children or be fined.

  • 214. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    It was RHIE that broke the site!! Hers was the last comment before the site went down!! Bad Rhie, BAD!

  • 215. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    hehe.

  • 216. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    As of 9:27 there have been two more! You want to stick with three, or up the ante?

  • 217. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    While we are waiting for the Mock Trial student's brief (which I hear might actually be considered) I came to a conclusion that all of the briefs filed so far are not really for 'traditional marriage' but because this trial is going to SCOTUS and might make history. Who doesn't want to be a part of history? This might be bigger than Loving vs. Virginia. To get your name on a brief that was included in this trial, whether rejected or not, gets you some fame (and possibly a book deal in the future.)

    So, after our party submits their brief I expect every gay person in the USA and abroad to have their attorneys (or in some of the appellant briefs, their sixth grade cousin) submit a brief!

  • 218. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Scrubbing Scribbling

  • 219. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Ooo, good idea! Maybe P8TTs should submit one. LOL.

  • 220. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    But remember to make sure you get the fonts and font size correct in the document!

  • 221. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Yes, they should, we could do a group thing and get all our names on it!

  • 222. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    And spell-check, FFS. I can't believe the spelling errors that get by these people.

  • 223. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Oh, also make sure you have the right Appellant and Appellee (we don't want to look stupid like Margie).

  • 224. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    And that it's on recycled paper…not just a good idea, IT'S THE LAW.

  • 225. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    You know elizabeth, facebook went down right after Rhie created a facebook account…

    hmmm

  • 226. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    The JPI brief ends with a must read conclusion. Procreation and voters rights, blah, blah, blah, AND AN INDIRECT ASSERTION THAT HOMOSEXUALS OPPOSE EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS!!!

    No seriously, you heard me right, some of the historical figures were for man woman marriage only and some of the historical figures were gay so therefore 'they' are not unlike the voters of California!

    I concede that I did an extremely poor legal analysis but anyone reading this will, I am sure, support me when I say, there was actually no legal analysis really to be given. It is a lovely little position piece for the e-ju-ma-cay-shun of the judges… kinda like a Shakespearian comical interlude between briefs, I mean tragedies.

    If you need to take a break from all the other piles of shtuff, I would highly recommend reading this fascinating masterfully written bit of humor!

    Love,

    Felyx

  • 227. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Without actually reviewing the cases cited, I have to say this one kind of makes sense. But they're only arguing for consideration de novo of some of the findings of fact and qualifications of Blankenhorn. They also want to throw out some of the deposition video evidence that was admitted.

    Evidence is so not my strong suit.

    Anyway, aside from some typos, nothing terribly amusing that I could find in this one.

  • 228. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    And, let's keep our citations within this century

  • 229. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    So I wasn't hallucinating when I read Margie's? That was submitted when I was between connections and busy with my project, so I haven't revisited it. But I remember glancing at it and not being able to make sense of who she was supporting.

  • 230. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    No Greco-Roman laws?? Spoilsport!

  • 231. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Or at least the 20th.

  • 232. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    I keep wanting to get out my baseball and football cards and see what they are worth…oh, yeah, that's beckett.

  • 233. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Margie thinks this is an appeal from Strauss v. Horton, she's that confused. One of her arguments was that we weren't allowed to have been in district court, because appeal from a state Supreme Court can only go to the SCOTUS.

    This led to a certain confusion on her part as to who she was supporting, too.

  • 234. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    or at least with REAL people

  • 235. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    No reliance on John Locke's definition of marriage — a man who never, in his 72 years got married?

  • 236. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Someone is making Margie's attorney a sign!

  • 237. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Oh my! I'll have to go back and read it. How funny!

  • 238. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    WOOT! WOOT!

    ::happy dancing!!!!::

  • 239. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    I am sticking with the three (the mock trial students might not make it, I am not making it easy on them getting it finished)

  • 240. DADT declared unconstitut&hellip  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    [...] now it's more than one court. MAJ Margaret Witt wins. http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/09…-to-air-force/ [...]

  • 241. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    What a great career boost for our own real estate attorney – write an amicus brief for p8tt signatories and go all the way to scotus with it.

  • 242. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Getting a serious case of Brief Grief!!!

    Seriously, I am totally in for making a P8TT brief. We could each submit brief (shnicker) histories of each of us and why this case involves us. We could add any arguments that we thought were left out (like transexual couples who can and so still procreate, genotypic vs phenotypic gender identity (with proper citation!), international cooperative exchange (read binationals) etc.) Some of our representing legal expertise can bring it together and submit it for our approval (more for the approval of our personal stories than for the brief overall). Then we raise the filing fee, get Kyrill to do a last minute thorough grammar check as only a foreign born English scholar could do and send it off!

    Chances are it would bring this site, and the gay community at large, some serious street cred. It will definitely hit the blogosphere and might even make the (mainstream) news!

    I am in! Felyx :`)

  • 243. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    They are dismissing that as having to do with the "badges of slavery". The 14th Amendment has been taken so far beyond the purpose of eliminating the "badges of slavery" as to make its origins almost irrelevant.

  • 244. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Anyone, I can't download this document (I don't even get the download button) can anyone else?

  • 245. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Me too, and they don't have to use 'lesbians love boies' as my name…but my real name too ; )

    As a matter of fact, use all of my posts Boies and Olson!

  • 246. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    I can, without any trouble. Try again?

  • 247. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    The download button is appearing above the document, in the extreme upper left. Try again.

  • 248. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Thank you. Normally I have a button below. Now I can record the words. Thanks

  • 249. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    I think we should make our arguments in graphic novel form or something, else we're not going to surmount the high bar of entertainment value set by the amici filed today.

  • 250. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    I like it! But I can't draw. No doubt another of our talented pool of Trackers can, though.

  • 251. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    She's been Rhie-king havoc all over the internet!!

  • 252. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    That's okay, I want a book deal too!

  • 253. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Oh, I do medical illustrations 'hi tech' gay style!

  • 254. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Best laugh today Elizabeth…that was punny!

  • 255. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Hmm, so you can depict each person as an internal organ or a gland or something, you know, like Art Spiegelman made everyone animals in "Maus"?

    I tap Earlobe!!!

  • 256. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Maybe they meant odor?

  • 257. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Just call me Pun-ky Bruiser (my roller derby name, should I ever be invited to roller.)

  • 258. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Do they balance tha with any of his (insignificant, I know) contributions?

  • 259. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Is it just me or is it a little — I don't know, almost unprofessional, or at least too informal — to talk about the "law of unintended consequences" in an appellate brief? In a court of law, the "law of unintended consequences" — isn't.

  • 260. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Next up, the Eagle Forum. Cue 'em up, Kathleen!

  • 261. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    well, no one took me up on the bet. so no one get's braggin' rights…except we all will get the real book deals! ugh

  • 262. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    BTW, if we really took this seriously we would have it finished right in time for any one of the Supreme Court decisions! Talk about free publicity!

    I have heard how hard it is to get into the book business but this would be a publishers wet dream!

    And as a suggestion, any royalties earned could be donated to our charity organization!

  • 263. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    How many we at now, LLB?

  • 264. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    OMG, I just found out they all knew each other was submitting briefs. They split them up so there would be one just after every hour. To make some mockery of the court system.

  • 265. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    four since I said three!

  • 266. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Never mind. I found the notice. I'll have it up in a minute.

  • 267. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Wait, how do you know that?

  • 268. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    20 total

  • 269. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Sorry LLB,

    Was too busy blue-skying over the brief and book project proposals…

    I say we should go for it… I am definitely in!

  • 270. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    oops 21 total

  • 271. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Awww, that's so sweet, keeping the Ninth justices up so late on a Friday!! I'm sure they'll REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

  • 272. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    I figured you'd get it before I had time to send it. I was working on it, honest!

  • 273. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    They're not waiting up! That's the beauty of e-filing. The clerks may be up, though. They've got a bunch of reading to do.

  • 274. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    UPDATE:
    Amicus brief by Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of Proponents (Appellants). http://www.scribd.com/doc/38110843

  • 275. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    It's in a queue. May take a few minutes to complete processing.

  • 276. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Where does the mockery come in by doing this?

  • 277. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    I'm sure the grouchy sleepless clerks will be really happy about it, too!

    I seem to recall an adage from The Theahtah: "Never p-off the stage manager unless you want to do your monologue in the dark." Hmmm. Wonder if that there's a corollary maxim re: law clerks. Hope so.

  • 278. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    it was sarcasm on my part. I apologize. I didn't mean reality, like I really knew, just when I was doing the count of how many had come in, there was a pattern.

    sorry.

  • 279. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    I am so literal sometimes. Most of the time, in fact. Must stop that.

  • 280. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Dude, don't expect a logical rationale from these people re: ANYTHING.

  • 281. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Sorry I misunderstood!

  • 282. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    I'm only counting 18. Wonder which ones I'm missing.

  • 283. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    The 13 states (coincidence? I think not!) are trotting out the usual line-up of arguments about channeling procreative activity into marriage. Blah, blah, blah.

  • 284. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    I get up weekdays at 2am…so it's late for me to be chatting…but I am not sleeping until after midnight (I really do want to read all these blathering documents.)

    Sleep deprivation makes me less incoherent than usual.

  • 285. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Children need a mother and a father. The usual mis-reading of studies showing children in single-parent households tend not to do as well. Blah, blah, blah.

  • 286. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Less incoherent?! :)

  • 287. DazedWheels  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I just found a link, too. This page also has links to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law…
    http://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/witt-v-us-air-force

    Yippee!

  • 288. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Right on, Dave, except maybe let’s leave the carving in stone for those primitives who think such things should overrule our body of civil law….. :)

  • 289. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Apparently our experts are "elite". Also, that's bad.

    Traditional marriage is rooted in the acquired cultural wisdom of citizens and cannot be impeached by the opinions of a few elite experts.

    Sure, let's drag culture war terminology like "elite" into the courtroom.

  • 290. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    the conclusion that the ideal ordering of human relationships is one in which a child is the product of the love of father and mother is not one subject to objective verification

    We don't need no stinkin' studies! It's not subject to objective verification!

  • 291. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I've only just started it, but they are saying states have primacy in determining marriage law and that Congress cannot regulate it. Hmm, I guess that means they all object to DOMA. Hmmm.

  • 292. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    1. County of Imperial, The Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial and Isabel Vargas

    2. Martin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal

    3. Margie Reilly

    4. Family Research Council.

    5. Liberty Institute, et al

    6. The High Impact Leadership Coalition, The Center for Urban Renewal and Education, and The Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc.

    7. The Western Center for Law & Policy on Behalf of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Desert Streams Ministries.

    8. Ethics and Public Policy Center

    9. Liberty Counsel JONAH Inc. Campaign for Children and Families.

    10. The American Center for Law and Justice.

    11. The Hausvater Project

    12. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops et al.

    13. Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson

    14. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & THERAPY FOUNDATION FOR HOMOSEXUALITY.

    15. Pacific Justice Institute.

    16. STATES OF INDIANA, VIRGINIA et al.

    17. American College of Pediatricians

    18. enter for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

    19. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

    20. National Legal Foundation.

    21. agle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.

  • 293. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    It's in a queue.

    For whatever reason I got this vision of senseless amicus briefs flooding in so fast that scribd crashes from all the submissions.

    I envisioned in the judgement some phrase to the effect of, 'Despite the vast record-setting outpouring of briefs for the proponents, we could still find no sufficient cause to reverse this decision.'

    LMGAO!!!

  • 294. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    #18 is Enter

    # 21 is Eagle

  • 295. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    In addition, several other former service members
    testified about their military experience as closeted gays or lesbians and the positive reaction of their
    fellow servicemen and women once they acknowledged their sexual orientation.

  • 296. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    # 22. Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

  • 297. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Not sure why Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence just entered one again…perhaps different attorneys trying to get a book deal?

  • 298. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    There is
    no evidence that wounded troops care about the sexual orientation of the flight nurse or medical
    technician tending to their wounds.

    Tony Perkins might.

  • 299. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    actually, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted to 10-16751 and 10-16696 (what dif is the numbers?)

  • 300. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    She's too tired to politely put up with the crap so she starts telling it like it is… you know… less incoherent. :P

    Just as a side note, I cannot imagine for a second that Maggie, Brian, Louis (Are you even still here Lou?), Perkins, McCain and the like are in anyway having as much fun (and bonding!) as we are!!!

    This family is great! We should totally write the book and then use the royalties to fund a HUGH get together so we can all meet… then we can rewrite the book with new chapters so we can all kvell about the awesome party!

  • 301. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Is this a brief for imperial county to be an intervenor?

  • 302. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    UPDATE: Amicus brief by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Appellants Imperial County. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38111600

  • 303. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    ah, the one I was reading goes with the next one you just posted…boy was I confuzzled.

  • 304. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    At page 19, the Liberty Counsel's brief uses a quote about women who are "enthralled in same sex relationships".

    They make it all sound so cinematic!

  • 305. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    No, I was reading the right one – Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of Proponents (Appellants).

    Ah, Imperial county has requested help from some who's who that wants a book deal.

  • 306. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    *fans face with paper towel* oh my

  • 307. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Those are the two different case numbers. The first AC by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence was in support of Proponents and the most recent one is in support of Imperial County.

    I was only counting amicus briefs. I still may be one off. I'll have to go back over. I want to be sure I have them all, because I'm going to make a single posting on the P8TT group page once they're all in.

  • 308. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Homosexuals in California are clearly not a politically marginalized group that triggers strict scrutiny solely from its powerlessness. Nor does Proposition 8 trigger intermediate scrutiny as gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause

    I think these brief filers are proving a different point.

  • 309. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    hold off because more are coming in.

  • 310. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    Maybe husmand is code for a gay male in an opposite sex mariage?

    We have to start adding this stuff to the Urban Dictionary site.

  • 311. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Okay, now I know I'm getting tired.

    I just thought "Horrific arcane" (above) was "Horrific acne."

    I wonder if the panel of judges is misreading stuff like this????

  • 312. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    "Thank you. Normally I have a button below."

    That's what she said.

  • 313. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    UPDATE: Awww, it's the Concerned Women

    Amicus brief by Concerned Women of America in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 9/24/2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38112247/CA9Doc-67

  • 314. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Well, if they outlaw horrific acne I know a few people who'll have to move out of California.

  • 315. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    They may not know it, but I am a concerned woman too. I just happen to also be a lesbian, concerned about teh gayz and lezbianz

  • 316. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    I've now got the same count as you. Thanks for compiling the list.

  • 317. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    I'm about ready to file on behalf of the Extremely Annoyed Women of America.

  • 318. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Well, it's more people from the who's who to help imperial county, but really want a book deal!

  • 319. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    We have to insert some of the newly-coined typos, like husmands.

    Someone, somewhere, has to draft a satirical brief in support of the appellants. It would be a great piece for The New Yorker. It can site potential damages as the loss of jobs suffered by Maggie et al if Walker's decision is upheld.

  • 320. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    in other words, Imperial county wasn't getting any, so they called some friends to throw some words together and submit them. (seems like there might have been a template to start with.)

  • 321. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Once they all come in we should all vote for our favorites.

  • 322. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Or "My baby has four grandma's and no grandpas"

  • 323. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Remember that Imperial County is technically appealing two things: (1) the decision itself and (2) the denial of its request to intervene. So, any amicus brief that is specifically in support of Imperial County (case # 10-16751) could be arguing in support of either one or both of these issues.

    BTW, I've assigned a different document numbering system for the two cases, to keep track of which documents are filed in which case:
    CA9DOC # = filed in the main case (Proponents as appellants)
    CA9Doc Imperial # = filed in the Imperial County case

  • 324. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    It appears triple spacing is the new rage (?)

  • 325. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    The state is obligated to further the rational interest of responsible husmanding.

  • 326. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    I say we allow folks a couple of weeks to decide. Today proved most of these filers waited til the last minute. I do need to re re re read them.

    But I am all for a P8TT poll

  • 327. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    And Wifering

  • 328. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Oh, on in from NOM

  • 329. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    "We should totally write the book and then use the royalties to fund a HUGH get together so we can all meet…"

    Wait…is a "HUGH get together" where we hire some male stripper ? ? ?

  • 330. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Someone needs to email Alan, he might want to get in on the NOM one.

  • 331. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    PJI will win hands down for being the seriously LEAST relevant!

    Of all the arguments tradition is the least relevant.

    Traditions from countries not your own are even LEASTER relevant.

    And tradition that that have no standing in the last two millenia have got to be the LEASTEREST-EST relevant of all!!!

  • 332. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    hand on Felyx, one just in from NOM

  • 333. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    hand = hang

  • 334. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    If there's a film version, the Concerned Women can be kind of a Greek chorus, wringing their hands in the background.

  • 335. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    I am reminded of Disney's Alice in Wonderland just after the dormouse squeaks Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Bat and the Queen whispers, "That's the best evidence we've heard all day!"

  • 336. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    They can stand in front of a Greek set built by PJI from all their highly accurate historical research of the era….

  • 337. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    UPDATE: Now we've heard from NOM

    Amicus brief by National Organization for Marriage, NOM Rhode Island, and Family Leader in support of Proponents (Appellants). Submitted 9/24/2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38113107

  • 338. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    OOOO, goody goody… please do post!!!

  • 339. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Is there actually a group called 'Family Leader' or is that what NOM is calling themself?

  • 340. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    We all go to Kate's ranch.

  • 341. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    One key thing to note: I don't think this time any brief brought up the 'if marriage equality is made land of the law, steve will marry his dog' argument.

  • 342. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    HOW LONG WILL THE PERSECUTION CONTINUE ? ! ? ! ? !

  • 343. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    "Someone, somewhere, has to draft a satirical brief in support of the appellants. It would be a great piece for The New Yorker. It can site potential damages as the loss of jobs suffered by Maggie et al if Walker’s decision is upheld."

    I haven't gotten past page one and already they name themselves as '…the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage." Followed by whining on how legalizing marriage will put them out of a job…

    Dear God Carpool Cookie, just when you though you could put one over on them they beat you to it!!! Already Mags is claiming she will be out of a job!

  • 344. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    I hope that was the last one, and I can't read it. I am trying, but it's the same blather. They cite maggie gallagher but forget to mention that she had a child out of wedlock. They cite the other same ole. It's def. getting old.

  • 345. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    "Margie thinks this is an appeal from Strauss v. Horton…This led to a certain confusion on her part as to who she was supporting, too."

    On a certain level, her dithering is almost charming. I'm glad she has a good husmand to look after her.

  • 346. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    Folks, this is reaching epidemic proportions… how can we mock and spoof these people when they beat us to it! It is like they know we are waiting to pounce so they find the most ridiculous thing to say, put it in legalese, and wait for us to just drop our jaws in sheer stupefaction!

    It like watching Steven Colbert when his interviewee says something so inane that there is just no response to be made!

  • 347. Leo  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    <cite>Additionally, every person who remains faithfully married, whether they have children together or not, is much less likely [to] create fatherless children in alternate relationships.</cite>

    And therefore, same-sex couples are situated similarly to infertile opposite-sex couples and should also be encouraged to marry! Q.E.D.

  • 348. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    "I’m about ready to file on behalf of the Extremely Annoyed Women of America."

    Okay, this one broke the bank.

    I need a husmand to change me!!!

  • 349. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    I am not even off of page one and there is a reference to 'Family Leader' being a source for 'accurate information and research'.

    It is… as though… Maggie was AT the trial… but yet… not actually THERE. 'Accurate information and research' stared her in the face and bitch-slapped her and Maggie seems to not even be aware of its existence! Astounding!

  • 350. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Okay, so now I now NOM is full of baloney…and here is why

    They say this group called Family Leader is recognized and respected as a source to whom conservative citizens and policy makers turn to for accurate information and research… blah blah blah

    Family Leader has been around since 2005…um and

  • 351. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    ah, you got that too? family leader was created by a businessman (no leadership in spirituality, family or anything else, except to get funding) in 2005

  • 352. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    UPDATE: From Paul McHugh, M.D. who wins (hands down) the award for best misspelling

    Amicus brief by Paul McHugh, M.D., John Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor of Pyschiatry [sic] in support of Proponents (Appellants) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38113670

  • 353. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    My neighbors must think I'm choking to death, I'm wheezing so hard with laughter. If every visit were like this, I'd have to wear Depends at the computer…like that (traditionally married) astronaut's wife who drove 2 days in her car or something to off his mistress.

  • 354. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Page two NOM…

    Is this a hint of truth? Are they admitting that they have only 27,000 members? (Roughly 0.015% of the population of the KOC alone.) Where were the Million for Marriage? the 700,000 or even the 400,000?

  • 355. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    hang on Kathleen, there is also one by a Eugene Dong waiting for you to download it.

  • 356. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    UPDATE:

    PLEASE! Make them stop!

    Amicus brief by Eugene Dong in support of Proponents (Appellants). http://www.scribd.com/doc/38113871

  • 357. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Maybe that's why all their "evidence" is so off?

    They've been hiring pyschiatrists.

  • 358. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    I just wish he were named Dr. Dong.

    Any chance?

  • 359. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    nope, now one in from American Civil Rights Union

  • 360. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Wow… I am done in. I am off to sleep all. I will definitely have to come back to the page later.

    Reading all these briefs has got me thinking one how to start ours (should we actually follow through). Somehow I strongly believe that there is not a chance in hell that I could possible do worse than what I have so far seen.

    Anyway, night all!

  • 361. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    UPDATE: I now know their plan.. their hoping we'll just drop out from exhaustion.

    Amicus brief by American Civil Rights Union in support of Proponents (Appellants) Submitted 9/24/2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38114017

  • 362. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Mr Dong – seriously " Heterosexual Couples are Disadvantaged by the Biologic and Economic
    Costs of Sexual Reproduction" excuse me?

  • 363. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    lol…we have stamina though – all of our energy isn't wasted hating

  • 364. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    he is a doctor dong

  • 365. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Pyschiatrists!!!

    Oh God! Stop! Dear Lord make it end! Two (different) sleeping aids and I am still wired as hell from laughing. I am laughing so hard I am crying!!!

    And I thought the case was funniest damn thing I ever saw!!!

    No wonder they need 'Pyschiatrists' to diagnose us… we are all laughing so damn hard we are pyscing ourselves like crazy!!!!

    This has GOT to go in the book!!! Seriously, the history of P8, heartbreaking stories, recipes and humor that will leave you laughing your ass off! (Add weight loss therapy to that… and I think we got it covered… no one will even be able to classify our book!)

  • 366. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    For some reason Mr Dong filed a second time. It has the same document number as the first, so I'm not going to upload it until I can tell if there's anything different about it.

  • 367. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    I need a translator for his conclusion…

    CONCLUSION

    This Court should reverse the judgment of the district court, because the state’s definition of marriage implements the Federal objective of perpetuating the race and provides benefits to heterosexual couples which may increase the chances for successful raising of the state’s children.

  • 368. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    She just has to do 180 hours of nursing to get back up to speed. Maybe she can volunteer at a clinic for a month?

  • 369. Rhie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Of course because the Catholic Church leadership hasn't done enough damage…

  • 370. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    I only got one from Dr. Dong – perhaps it is just a dup email

  • 371. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Is he concerned this is about homosexuals adopting children in california?

  • 372. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I think you're right. Both emails have the same time stamp. My email's been flaky today.

  • 373. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    It appears he assumes only heterosexual couples have children.

  • 374. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    following in suit Felyx.

    I am going to have to reread these tomorrow morning. I pray that we have seen the last of these, but not so sure!

  • 375. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Speaking of unprofessional, the Liberty / JONAH one keeps stating, "children need a mom and a dad."

    (Though in some places they capitalize mom and / or dad, apparently to keep us alert and awake.)

  • 376. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I'm signing off, as well. I'll update the Prop 8TT fb group page, then see you all tomorrow.

  • 377. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    The Westboro Baptist Church DOES have lawyers in their family. Where are they?

  • 378. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    That's DR. DONG to you!

  • 379. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    CC;

    No, what they're doing here is telling us to have a nice steaming cup of hemlock.

  • 380. Carpool Cookie  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    In closing, I will note that Amicus Curiae means "Friend of the Court."

    I think tonight's briefs have taught us that no friend of [this] court is a friend of ours!

  • 381. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    LLB:

    Oh No!!!!

    Rhie is running all our social networking.

    Don't let her NEAR your servers!

    :>

  • 382. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    E Oakes:

    I can think of an external organ that would work great for Brownsuit. :>

  • 383. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    LLB:

    I actually read

    21. agle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.

    as

    21. alge Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.

    I need to go to bed… *yawn*

  • 384. Phil L  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    So it's sort of a collective booty call party for Imperial County?

  • 385. Ann S.  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    OMG, it is devoted to the proposition that we should keep separate institutions for same-sex unions because the ancient Greeks and Romans did.

    What about all those who argue that Rome fell because they tolerated homosexuality? Saw that one (again) on FB today.

    HAHAHAHA!

  • 386. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    These guys should make some games for Wii and the X-box!

  • 387. elliom  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    "perpetuating the race "

    This is the one that gets me.

    Marriage equality wil cause the extinction of humanity. I want know…HOW…wil all human's instantly become sterile, or will native tribes far away with no contact with the western world spontaneously stop having sex?

  • 388. Alan E.  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    I am completely backed up now. I am still on the JONAH brief, and that one is painful enough. It’s nothing but Freudisms. Consider the sources they are citing:

    NARTH
    APA (quote mining)

    Books:
    Same Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk
    A Parents’ Guide to Preventing Homosexuality
    Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women (1981)
    Coming Out of Homosexuality
    Life Without a Father
    Someone I Love is Gay

    Studies as far back as the 60′s.
    More recent studies aren’t from credible sources, aren’t peer reviewed, or are credible studies that are quote-mined to find quotes that fit their propaganda.

  • 389. BK  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Yes, this is awesome! And have you noticed that if this is appealed, it will go to the 9th Circuit of Appeals?? They're probably feeling pooey with all the gay stuff coming at them. :)

  • 390. BK  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Woah, there, Alan. ;)

  • 391. BK  |  September 24, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    It would take a long time, but… it's possible.

    I wonder if she can still retire after (at least) 2 more years of service and get that pension dealie that comes from 20+ yrs of service?

  • 392. Phil L  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    As for a novel… who would play everyone in "Prop8TrialTracker.com THE BOOK!!! THE MOVIE!!!!!"?

    At any rate, I can kind of sort of draw. The website linked to my profile has some of my artwork (certainly not all of it though).

  • 393. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 24)
    Another blow to DADT as court orders reinstatement
    Major Margaret Witt, who won reinstatement to her unit with the U.S. Air Force in a court ruling against “Don't ask, don't tell,” talks to Rachel Maddow about the ruling. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a U.S. Air Force fighter pilot facing discharge under “Don't ask, don't tell” talks about the implications for his case.
    In this bit Rachel talks about several major gay rights victories of the last several weeks: Prop 8 ruling, DADT California ruling, Florida Gay Adoption Ban ruling, and now Witt case ruling. Unfortunately, she forgets about two DOMA rulings that have a nationwide potential for marriage equality.

    – ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUIw_56MWU

  • 394. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 24)
    DADT opponents find ally in Constitution
    Jonathan Turley, Constitutional law professor at George Washington University Law School, talks with Rachel Maddow about Friday's ruling against “Don't ask, don't tell,” the Witt standard, and the recent space of gay rights wins in court cases around the country.

    – ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTsONjFktqg

  • 395. Phil L  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Wait… you're effing kidding, right? They admitted to having 27,000 members?!

    THAT'S IT?!

  • 396. Phil L  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    What I can see happening here is perhaps something like this:

    These briefs will be reviewed, fact checked, eviscerated by the court or our side, and seen for what they really are; the "majority" trying to show how much they really hate the idea of us getting married.

    I think that what it will likely accomplish is to show the court just how discriminatory these people are and how we do need to be protected from them and to have our rights granted by the court and not the majority or legislation.

  • 397. Phil L  |  September 24, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Hmm… at a glance it seems that they are saying that Family Leader seems to have 27,000 members, so unless that's an alias for NOM then I'd imagine that they aren't ready to reveal the reality of it all; that the ghosts in Pac-Man outnumber them.

  • 398. Felyx  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    While your humor can be as sering as mine, I have seriously considered the idea that we should turn the P8TT comments here into a novel.

    I sort of envision a narrative of the events that led up to the P8 trial and follow it all the way to the SC. There would be a multitude of small chapters, submitted by each of us, each covering an aspect or perspective of the events or issues involved, (DOMA, DADT say by any military gays here, binational concerns submitted by the binationals, the 18,000 by some of the 18,000, etc.)

    Then the editor or editors would bind the chapters together in such a way to take us through the narrative as mentioned above. Talk about a best-seller!

    Of course the title would have to be…

    Prop8trialtracker.com THE BOOK!!!

    A brief and a book… these projects would be something we would be proud of for the rest of our lives!

    Felyx

    (PS… as an added bonus we could include recipes… I know who will take dibs on the Challah!!! :P )

  • 399. Kate  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Is that Schafly’s old group?

  • 400. Kathleen  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    Really? I didn’t get that notice. I suspect there’s something up with my email. Can you forward the notice to me? Maybe your forward will get through where the notice from the court didn’t.

  • 401. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Now that I read it again… maybe I would prefer to be husman’d! Hehehe!

    I will be honored to husmand you, my darling!

    – ♂KF

  • 402. Ray in MA  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    WOW. 400+ comments may be a new record here?!?!

    One more…

    I haven't heard this phrase yet: term yet:

    "Service Equality".

    (like "Marriage Equaility")

  • 403. BK  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Comments record!!! If only we had another conversation starting up on this page. :)

  • 404. Sagesse  |  September 24, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Generally true, but there are a few oldies but goodies you might want to hang onto… like Marbury v Madison for instance.

    How about 7 citations from the 20th/21st centuries for each ancient one?

  • 405. celdd  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I like your thinking!

  • 406. Tomato  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    "BTW, none of these arguments were made C.E."

    And if we could make these folks read the original texts of the story of the Centurion and the story of the Good Samaritan, they would see that Jesus accepted Teh Gayz and chastised his followers for being leery of them.

    (The Centurion, his beloved "body servant", and the "eunuch" Samaritan are clearly gay. Of course, lesbians seem to be left out; but Jesus was quite radically liberal enough for his time in simply accepting women as equals. Too bad Simon Peter was such a butt-head and so envious of Mary Magdalene's position, and turned himself into such a raving misogynist and warped everything after Jesus died… like Paul did. We'd've had an end to rigid patriarchy PDQ.)

  • 407. Tomato  |  September 24, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    A brief by P8TT would be a great thing. I'm in one of the 18,000 marriages and I'd be happy to contribute to a brief.

  • 408. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:04 am

    What gets me is that all these arguments seem to be about how TAKING AWAY heterosexual marriage would be bad.

    But no-one anywhere in the trial has said they want to eliminate hetero marriages.

    So why do they go on and on about heterosexual marriage?

  • 409. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Tomato, I think you would be in two (2) separate briefs…the one from P8TT and the one from the 36,000 married couples.

  • 410. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:08 am

    If anyone is still here, can you explain to me this amicus stuff?

    Considering the thousands of marriage-equality clergy in California, would it be better for them all to file one brief together (like the huge group filing on Prop 8 the clergy did) or better to flood the system with one from each church?

    What is the point of an amicus brief? Is it just to holler out "me too"? Does it have any influence on decision making?

  • 411. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:12 am

    wait… …the threat of religious liberty … … huh?

    You use mosquito repellent as a 'rational response to the threat of malaria'. You use a fire extinguisher as a 'rational response to the threat of fire'.

    I think they meant to say … the threat to religious liberty … .

    Of course, a threat to religious liberty is exactly what they have caused, since they are impugning on some church's desire to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 412. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:13 am

    With all these <del>amicus</del>animus briefs discussing all these 'traditional marriages'… how are we supposed to know which one the Proponents are trying to Protect.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 413. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Oooh, twice the fame and notariety!

  • 414. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Not a record yet, 473 comments:
    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/18/welcome-t

  • 415. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:18 am

    Thanks for wading through that crap for us, Felyx! I doubt I would have been able to handle the emotional turmoil. I would have ended up punching a hole all the way through the wall into the neighbor's apartment – and the walls are concrete.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 416. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:19 am

    Their heads will explode the second we get marriage (but I think only the H8teros) not our ally's.

  • 417. BK  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:20 am

    What I'm wondering is how the military can continue to enforce a ban that's unconstitutional… unless, because of some type of appeal, the decision's implications are delayed? Sorry if this is mentioned before–I couldn't read all the comments! Ha.

  • 418. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:21 am

    BTW, here's a nice and clearly written website that discusses the translation of the two stories.

    This link is the one for the story of the Centurion. "Pais" is the word that becomes "body servant" or "servant" in the modern translations, but it meant same gender partner.
    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_ev

    (BTW, I waaaaaant that bumpersticker!)

  • 419. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:22 am

    Oops, sorry I used "BTW" so many times. Not enough coffee yet this morning.

  • 420. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I have finally figured it out — I'm now convinced that all you guys who clearly think much faster than I are actually the authors of this tsunami of amicus briefs. It's the only thing that makes sense — the briefs are so hysterical that only our witty P8TT commenters are capable of such humor-hiding-as-legal-arguments. Can't you just see all those judicial clerks rolling around on the floor laughing madly right now? Yes, bring on the Depends!

  • 421. Don in Texas  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:59 am

    If the Court determines that the Proponents lack standing to appeal, are all of these amicus briefs just so much wasted paper and ink?

  • 422. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:01 am

    I am sooo confused… how does the biologic and economic cost of sexual reproduction have anything at all with allowing another couple to get married?

    Oh, I just answered my own question. Teh Gayz would have more money to spend on interior decorating, and there's no way Ward and June Cleaver could ever keep up with the Joneses.

    WTF.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 423. Don in Texas  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Except for their humor value, of course.

  • 424. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:17 am

    The last of these email notifications is time-stamped around 3:00 a.m.

    I realize the email system might not be completely up to speed, but methinks there is a chance one or two of these are technically beyond the filing deadline.

  • 425. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:17 am

    And also for their financial hits on the various group treasuries…..

  • 426. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:18 am

    But we still get to read them, right? Right????

  • 427. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:30 am

    OMG, they actually do claim it will harm their ability to pursue their mission in California, the 9th Circuit states, and throughout the US.

    Boo-hoo, I'm weeping for NOM and Maggie and Louis and Brian.

    ::barf::

  • 428. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Well, thank goodness for small favors?

  • 429. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:38 am

    I am going to marry both of my dogs. Too bad they're male, though; "they" will probably think it's OK then.

  • 430. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:50 am

    I think it would be better to band together and have some good lawyers create a really cogent amicus brief for them. Amicus briefs do help to show strength of feeling, but I think one good one on behalf of, say, 100 churches is better than 100 briefs all saying essentially the same thing.

    The point of an amicus brief is to bring to the court's attention issues that may not be raised directly by the parties before them but may affect other parties, and to raise arguments that have not been made by the parties. That explains some of the oddballs like the Greco-Roman laws and practices one — the parties didn't want to throw that in there, but someone else thought it was relevant, so there it is.

    Unfortunately, so many of them just say the same thing over and over, sort of saying, "hey, we're upset about this too". If one of them comes up with an argument that the court finds persuasive, though, they will consider it.

  • 431. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Of course right!

  • 432. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:53 am

    There are certain inefficiencies in combining the standing hearing with the appeal hearing, yes.

  • 433. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:57 am

    actually the latest one missing the deadline was requesting to file late on 9/27 at 8:30am, they couldn't even get that in on time…lol

  • 434. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:59 am

    I don't know….but the "Biologic Cost" (?) might reference how women's bones and teeth weaken around the time of carrying their 5th child? Or maybe it's all that precious, Divinely created Patriarchal seed that's spent in the effort?

    I really can't imagine where they're going with that claim….

  • 435. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:03 am

    And possibly TWO book deals!

  • 436. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:04 am

    "Marriage equality will cause the extinction of humanity. I want know…HOW…will all human’s instantly become sterile, or will native tribes far away with no contact with the western world spontaneously stop having sex?"

    Yes, of course. Once children realize gays and lesbians can marry, they'll conjecture that they can HAVE SEX, and the little mites will be so horrified and damaged they'll never want to touch another human being at any cost.

    We must start stockpiling food.

  • 437. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:14 am

    If it was a party that would be a bigger deal. For an amicus that maybe no one will even respond to directly, it's not such a big deal, IMO.

    It does show a certain ineptitude on their part, or perhaps just indecision about whether they were even going to file.

  • 438. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:18 am

    The point of Amicus briefs is it lets others throw their hat in the ring and show support. But unless they reveal some fine legal point everyone else has missed, their main value is in bringing in recognized names for a cause. It's like having a famous psychiatrist/pyschiatrist testify for you in court.

    But all these obscure nutjobs aren't doing the appellants any favors. It's one thing to have your side supported by N.A.T.O. It's another to have "The Concerned Women of America" (??) revealed as your base.

  • 439. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:23 am

    @ Kathleen and all other legal eagles:

    I have been reading about the Witt decision and was surprised to learn that DOJ did not appeal it, since they are feebly insisting on defending/appealing everything else. Then I learned that the Solicitor General at the time advised DOJ not to appeal to SCOTUS, because the case was still developing (had been remanded back to the District). Thus the 9th Circuit decision remained with us long enough for Major Witt to get her retrial under the 9th's "heightened scrutiny" criterion.

    My questions are two:

    1. If/when DOJ appeals Leighton's decision on Witt's reinstatement, can they combine it with an overall challenge to the 9th Circuit's Witt standard then?

    2. What might be the likely effect of the fact that any appeal to SCOTUS of this DADT case, the LCR DADT case in Riverside, or the Gill Doma case in MA will leave us with 8 Justices, since Elena Kagan was that Solicitor General who was indeed involved in the processing of these cases? She has already decided to recuse herself from I think 20 cases, not all gay stuff of course, but it looks like we're facing a Supreme Court not just with one hand tied behind our metaphorical backs (relying solely on Kennedy for an anticipated 5-4 split) but with TWO (losing both Kagan's vote and her persuasive participation in debate/discussion with the other justices).

    Anybody able to put our minds at ease about this?

    Thanks,
    <3 Jake

  • 440. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:57 am

    It's different in various areas of law, and cases are individual, but often, until a case has completely exhausted its way through the appeal system (which involves multiple levels), the case is not really considered resolved. The outcome is more "on hold". And since the outcome is not assured, the remedy isn't put into place, because it could be reversed.

    In the simplest example, think of a financial lawsuit. The financial award isn't paid out when there's been one decision saying that's what should happen…otherwise, checks would be flying back and forth between the parties throughout the whole process, depending on how a decision flip-flopped in whose favor at any given point.

    OT, but while we're on the topic of procedure, another misconception people can have is that one or another side is duty-bound to appeal…or even defend itself. (If you don't show up in court, you simply cede victory to the other side.) For instance, if someone sues me over something, I don't HAVE to mount a defense; I can just say "Okay, that's what happened…let's work something out and get it fixed."

  • 441. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Well, if we file a P8TT amicus, I can represent all the wedding vendors who are harmed horribly because U.S. straight marriage is at its lowest rate since 1968 because the NOMbies ruined it for everybody and no one wants to do it anymore.

  • 442. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:20 am

    As Ann says, it's better to have one good brief with a lot of supporters signed on than it is to have dozens of briefs saying the same thing.

    The ac filed by religious groups in support of plaintiffs in the district court is an excellent example of what a good ac does. It not only showed the support of those religious groups but it focused on an argument that wasn't stressed by plaintiffs in their briefs. The religious groups talked about how their own religious freedom was impacted by the passage of Prop 8, an argument that (for reasons I've explained here many times) is not a strong legal argument for plaintiffs, but is a good point to be brought to the Court's attention.

  • 443. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I'm not even going to try to pronounce "pys-chiatry" but I bet it's pretty accurate.

  • 444. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 3:24 am

    If this case has two Dongs in its briefs….well, I'm not going to say it.

  • 445. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:11 am

    BK, this has already been to the 9th Circuit once. It was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that established the "Witt Standard" in its ruling, saying that the federal government had to prove that removing Witt furthered the goals alleged by the DADT policy AND the feds' actions would have to pass a higher level of scrutiny (intermediate), rather than using the rational basis test the district court first used.

    The 9th sent the case back to the trial court for fact finding, to give the feds an opportunity to meet that standard. Of course, it couldn't. In fact, Witt was able to show that her dismissal actually HARMED unit cohesion and readiness.

  • 446. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Kathleen,

    But Witt 2 now can and will be appealed by DOJ, won't it. It's the only way the principles in Witt can make it to SCOTUS?

  • 447. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Ooop! The Baptists are there, calling themselves the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, "the moral
    concerns and public policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention." Wow, they need a separate commission to deal with moral concerns. Seems odd they didn't spot Bishie Eddie's malfeasance with all those eyes appointed to do so, or have any moral objection to the high-roller lifestyle their leaders seem to be living…..with people starving and in poverty and all.

  • 448. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I suspect the time stamps you're seeing are Eastern time. I was up and receiving these and they all (except NOM's revision and the one by Catholics for the Common Good w/the request for time extension) came in by midnight PDT.

  • 449. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:46 am

    OK, only two show as having come in after midnight, one is the request for time extension by CCG, and the other came in at 1:30 but indicates that the filing was at 11:57 p.m. PDT.

  • 450. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Apparently, none of them had my history teacher who would fail any paper that included out-of-context quotes to back a view.

  • 451. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:52 am

    UPDATE: Amicus brief by Catholics for the Common Good (with motion for permission to file and request to extend time to file until 8:30 am 9/27/2010).

    NOTE: the filing notice indicates there is a motion for extension of time to file, but it does not appear in the document. The only motion in the document is the standard motion for leave to file amicus brief. We're not likely to know whether the Court will accept this brief until Monday. My guess is they will, but maybe the clerks are as sick of dealing with this stuff as we are. :)

  • 452. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Oops. Forgot the link. Here you go: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38142061

  • 453. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:54 am

    That word – I don't think it means what they they think it means. The logic and writing is very coherent.

  • 454. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:00 am

    I would think taking weeks to hear all the evidence and months to weigh it before giving a decision would be cautious to any reasonable person…

  • 455. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Jake, Judge Leighton's decision can be appealed to the 9th Circuit. Once that appeal is final, either party can petition to have the case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And, yes, the holding by the 9th Circuit that heightened scrutiny must apply will be part of what will be appealed.

    If the Supreme Court overturns the part of the decision established the so-called "Witt Standard," then it will not bode well for an appeal of the LCR case. To the extent that Judge Philips depended on the standard established in Witt by the 9th Circuit, the decision could be vulnerable on appeal.

    I wish I could set your mind at ease over the issue of Kagan's possible recusal in the cases that have gone through the DOJ during her time there. But, fact is, I've had the same concern. It shouldn't affect Perry, but may impact the DOMA and DADT cases. We'll have to see what happens.

    BTW, do you have a link to the list of cases she's already identified as those in which she would recuse herself?

  • 456. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:18 am

    First of all, there has been no final judgment entered in either the Witt or LCR cases. Until that happens, formally, the remedy hasn't been ordered by the court. Once that happens, the losing party will likely ask that the decision be stayed – through a request to either the district court judge or the appeals court – just as we saw in Perry.

    As an aside, it may be that there is an automatic stay for a certain period of time. That happened in the DOMA cases (14 days after judgment), and I still haven't figured out why that happened there and not in Perry. It could be because the feds were involved in DOMA, or maybe it's a rule in that particular court – I just don't know (very, very weak in procedure, though learning a lot as we go along… )

    But, in any event, it is typical in cases like these to issue a stay, pending appeal, to maintain status quo until a higher court weighs in or declines to review the decision.

  • 457. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Their also using the My Minority Friend defense

  • 458. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:30 am

    They're…

  • 459. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:34 am

    I think threat of religious liberty is unintentionally honest. They don't want anyone to have any liberty at all if they don't meet their standard of Real True Christian.

  • 460. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Oh, my comment posted then? I just got the error message. I think it's all the briefs. The site just can't take that much shit. :)

  • 461. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:37 am

    LOL…Rhie-king havoc. Don't tell my SO – he'll start with that one too.

    Funny thing is that whenever things break/happen around the house I tend to be at the bottom of it. My So calls it my "chaos field".

    He's now telling me I should alpha test video games because if I can't break it no one can, heh.

  • 462. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:42 am

    That reminds me of a comment I saw on Twitter: Gay people are the most powerful people on earth. Just by merely existing they can destroy society.

  • 463. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Read that as submitting briefs…which made me think of the legal version of throwing panties on a stage.

    I do believe I need coffee.

  • 464. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Yes, the holding in the district court can be reviewed by the 9th. I was just letting BK know that it was the 9th who had already established the "Witt Standard." Sorry if I confused — was written before sufficient coffee.

  • 465. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Kate, waving at Rhie from frequently-frequented Vashon Island.

  • 466. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Kathleen, I will go find them again, I have the links somewhere.

    Is there a better way for me to post them to you than here? Otherwise, look for me here somewhere.

    Thanks,
    Jake
    SFexpat (soon to be repatriated I hope!)

  • 467. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Thank you so much for posting all this! Curious, what is your legal specialty?

  • 468. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Kathleen, here is a snippet from one link:
    http://sdgln.com/news/2010/09/14/supreme-court-ju

    " The number of Kagan recusals for this term has gained notice in several law-oriented blogs. As the Blog of the Legal Times (BLT) noted Sept. 10, Kagan has, thus far, recused herself from 21 of the court’s current 40 cases for the session that begins Oct. 4.

    As BLT noted, Kagan said during her confirmation hearing this summer that she would recuse herself from any case in which she “personally reviewed a draft pleading or participated in discussions to formulate the government’s litigating position.”

    The BLT says the recusals seem to suggest Kagan has made “a determination that her participation at earlier stages [in litigation] — even where her office [as U.S. Solicitor General] did not file a brief — required her to step aside.”

    So far, no gay-related case is among the 21 Kagan has recused herself from. But from testimony during her confirmation hearing and elsewhere, one might surmise that Kagan could well decide to recuse herself from the two Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases in Boston and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) case Witt v. U.S. In response to a question during her confirmation hearing, Kagan said she had not been a decision-maker on the DOMA cases because the Solicitor General’s office does not get involved in cases until they reach the federal appeals level. The two DOMA cases were in the district court level during Kagan’s tenure as Solicitor General.

    It seems not to be a done deal for all GBLT-related cases, but this issue has been a niggling concern or loose end at the back of my brain.

    Let me know your thoughts,

    Thanks,
    JakeSFexpat

  • 469. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:23 am

    @ Kathleen,

    Sorry about the formatting. I ain't up to modern times.

    JK

  • 470. Read ‘em, weep, and&hellip  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:49 am

    [...] Friday night uploading all of them to Scribd and posting them in the comments to last night’s breaking news on Maj. Margaret Witt. Then she compiled them all and emailed them to me, as well as posting them on the Prop 8 Trial [...]

  • 471. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Jake, thank you! btw, if you're on facebook, you can find me there by clicking on my name and send me a private message through facebook (not necessary to be fb 'friends' to send pm). I can pass along my email address to you there.

  • 472. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I see that article mentions the implications for Perry if Kagan recuses, but I don't know why the author thinks that would even be an issue. The feds have not been involved in this case.

  • 473. Carpool Cookie  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Kate, I thought we agreed not to talk about that on the main board?? Bring it up at the Pentagon meeting Wednesday.

  • 474. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:19 am

    @ Kathleen, sorry am not on FB. Nor do I text or tweet. Can be reached via yahoo IM name of signalbutt. It's not what you think.

  • 475. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Rhie, I have a law degree from UCLA, but do not practice law. I because disabled by a chronic illness during law school.

    I entered law school with an interest in the areas of civil rights and intellectual property. While there, I fell in love with constitutional law, with particular interest in glbt issues and discovered (much to my surprise!) that I might enjoy litigation. In my community advocacy, I've also become familiar with disability rights, particularly in the area of public transportation for people with disabilities.

    I continue to struggle with my health, going through phases of relative health and then taking big crashes again. I keep hoping that my health will recover sufficiently so that someday I can make use of my skills and interests, even if only in a volunteer capacity.

    Thanks for asking!

  • 476. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:34 am

    @ Kathleen again,

    Yes, I have no worries wrt Kagan and the Perry case, but the DADT and DOMA circumstances make me grind my teeth, and not in no good way.

    Sorry don't have a website or some other to talk to you offline but contact me via yahoo IM (signalbutt) and we can chat endlessly.

  • 477. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Jake, downloaded Yahoo Messenger just to find a way to reach you. :) You should see a add request waiting for you.

  • 478. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    This "a child needs a mother and a father" stuff really gets to me. Any of those states in the brief allow homosexuals to adopt? allow single heterosexuals to adopt? How about all of us single moms who managed to raise good kids who turned into good adults? or for that matter those single fathers who have done the same? Sure, it might be ideal but this is not an ideal world. What a child needs is nurturing and love and that can be provided by single parents as well as homosexual couples. I am so sick of that argument. Guess with their logic, I should have stayed with my son's alcoholic abusive father so that he would have had a male influence in his home life. Personally, no child needs that influence, be it from the mother or the father, in their home life.

    Off my rant.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother (who was a single mother for 12 of my son's first 18 years (left his dad when he was 6))

  • 479. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  September 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Felix, you forgot to add and a recommendation for the best optimal nutritional supplement, as I know that in some post way, way back (well, somewhere between when the trial started and now), I mentioned Reliv's line of supplements. And, then there are all of the gardening tips. I mean, this is a well rounded group here.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 480. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I hear you, Sheryl. And completely agree.

  • 481. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    @ Kathleen again and again,

    oops! I declined an invite on yahoo before I realized it could be you. (I get several from people whose net names I don't know and I didn't know yours, sorry)

    I will try to invite/add you!

  • 482. JakeInPhx  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:41 am

    P.S. Couldn't remember which way you spelled the animals in your life, so I guessed the standard way. If I screwed things up messenger-wise, you can always email me at the same ya-hooey address.

  • 483. Kate  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Jake — You can also set up a throwaway e-mail address in Yahoo and post it here for Kathleen. Then she will respond to it from her real e-mail, and you'll be all set.

  • 484. Kathleen  |  September 26, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Just sent another invite – this time with a message (didn't realize the first time I could do that).

  • 485. Rhie  |  September 26, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Hi there!

  • 486. Rhie  |  September 26, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Wow, I am sorry you got hit with that. Chronic illness is a bear like no other – I have Fibromyaglia, myself. I really hope that you can find a good doctor or team of doctors to help you get as well as possible.

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