Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

9th Circuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger hearing: live thread and chat

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Liveblogging Prop 8 trial Trial analysis

By Adam Bink

Welcome to the live thread for the 9th Circuit hearing of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case appeal. If you Googled “Prop 8 trial” for coverage and found yourself clicking on the first search result, welcome to Prop8TrialTracker.com!

Today, we’ll have four P8TT folks covering the hearing. I will be live-blogging the coverage and running the show here at the P8TT mothership; Courage Chair/Founder Rick Jacobs, who helped make P8TT the go-to spot by live-blogging the Judge Walker hearing from the courtroom, and Field Director Arisha Michelle Hatch will be sending in dispatches, including photos, from their seats in the courtroom and at the events outside prior to the trial commencing; and P8TT legal analyst/Calitics blog publisher Brian Leubitz will be adding legal analysis in this thread. I will also be occasionally live-tweeting via my handle @adamjbink. You can also follow @rickjacobs, @equalityontrial and @couragecampaign for updates, as well as Equality on Trial on Facebook. And of course, we look forward to dispatches in the comments from commenters Kathleen, Ann S. and other folks who will be there, and thoughts from the rest of you!

As a reminder, the first hour will be spent arguing the issue of standing, and the second hour on the issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself. All updates you see are from me unless noted otherwise. New updates will scroll from the top.

12:46: The court stands adjourned. Stay tuned for more analysis here.

12:45: Cooper concludes by quoting from Romer re Amendment 2 in arguing that Amendment 2 went too far in singling out a class of people, but the effort to “protect” marriage does not.

12:43: Brian’s take on Olson’s closing arguments:

In the record, there has been no showing of harm. Could distinguishing marriage from Dps in name only, that it is rational to encourage safe procreation? That would still not be a rational basis. The word is the institution, but children are not shown to be better off.

The California system is irrational, because there are different classes. Heterosexuals can marry. Some homosexuals are allowed to be married if they married in 2008, but they can’t even remarry the same person if divorced.

The citizens of California who are behind one fence, gays and lesbians, can not take part in the institution that everybody else can. (Marriage) That is not allowed under the Constitution.

Question: Can we go beyond California? Can we go beyond the Roemer rationale, that is taking away a right?

Olson: Yes you can. You can go beyond California, and the Roemer rationale. It can not be justified under any standard. All of the arguments are neither rationale nor Constitutionally permissible.

12:42: Cooper will spent a few minutes rebutting. Starts out by saying that if Loving wanted to marry the man with whom he had sexual relations and the case was brought on those grounds, it would not have been ruled the way it was.

12:38: Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney from the City/County of San Francisco steps up. The crux of her argument is that the only reason behind Prop 8 is animus towards same-sex couples- there is no rational basis. Notes that CA family law treats gay/straight couples as the same. Equal protection doesn’t allow the state to enact a measure based on a view that some people are unworthy. Her time spent arguing is short.

12:30: A quote from Olson so spot-on I typed verbatim (first part): “California has taken a class of citizens and put them in a separate category; that act of discrimination and there is no doubt that it is discrimination and there is no doubt that it does great harm, can it be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis and I argue it cannot be justified at the lowest standard of constitutional analysis.” He concludes his argument on an extension of this point.

12:28: Olson describes the “crazy quilt” of California laws e.g. some s-s couples who married can stay married, but if they get divorced they cannot get re-married, etc. in arguing that the current marriage system violates equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment.

12:25: Brian dropped in this summary of the last 10 minutes or so:

Olson: Taking away rights because of their identity as homosexuals violates Crawford in light of Roemer. How can a constitution right be taken away because of the constitutional activity under Lawrence, sexual activity? It cannot be taken away because of their orientation. It discriminates on sex and sexual orientation. Proponents have come up with no rational reason to repeal decision.

You can’t wall off a right because children shouldn’t be exposed to sexuality. It just doesn’t stand up to even the lowest level of rational basis.

In Roemer, Justice Kennedy said that the reasons behind the measure must be rational. Reasons cannot come out from the sky.  This is an important aspect of the “heightened” rational basis test emerging from the jurisprudence of Justices Kennedy and O’Connor.  Essentially, the reason must come from the record, and from the background of the measure.

12:22: Olson argues that gays/lesbians having immutable characteristics + the damage done by discrimination= heightened scrutiny in this case. Can’t name any damage that would be done. Smith interrupts. Cites a number of various pro-Prop 8 arguments (children likely to thrive when raised by both father and mother, etc.) and asks if that would survive the rational basis test. Olson challenges such an argument re children/mother/father and says it’s easy to say those things, but “the remedy doesn’t fit the so-called problem… 30K children in same-sex households today… if you had s-s marriages, it doesn’t change where the children will be raised.”

12:16: Hawkins asks about the pro-creation argument that Cooper made. Olson replies that same-sex marriage will not keep opposite-sex people from getting married, getting divorced, having kids, etc. Points to Cooper’s concession “I don’t know” when asked in the lower court case what harm there would be.

12:13: Olson cites Lawrence v. Texas in arguing that a Constitutional right be taken away because of a Constitutionally protected “activity.” It’s not just a right of same-sex persons, it’s a right of all individuals. Ridicules pro-Prop 8 supporters’ argument that opposite-sex marriage must be protected in order to protect kids, saying if that were a sound justification, we  should all be banning video games, comic books, and the like.

12:07: Olson deries Cooper’s discussion of “society’s interest in procreation.” He says rights are not California’s right, or the voters’ rights, but individual rights under the 14th Amendment, and denying marriage could take that away. Very sharp point.

12:04: Olson continues, the In re Marriage Cases makes all this (Prop 8 itself) worse. Olson says Cooper’s definition of marriage is wrong. Notes US Supreme Court has never said marriage is just between man and woman when ruling in the context of prisoners, contraception, divorce, other cases that marriage is (a) liberty (b) privacy (c) association (d) identity. Notes Supreme Court has said this 14 different times.

12:01: Ted Olson steps up to the plate. Off the bat, plainly notes that CA voters have enshrined discrimination into the Constitution. Voters have “denied access to what the Supreme Court has noted is the most important relationship in life.”

9th_Circuit_hearing_8

12:00: Brian Leubitz notes to me over e-mail, “The argument seems to be boiling down to the word. This is shaky ground for Cooper. He is now arguing that marriage (the word) is just special. He is arguing that marketing is somehow enough of a reason to discriminate. Cooper and Smith are going back and forth, looking at Roemer, and whether states can be damaged constitutionally by acting towards giving rights.”

11:59: Smith asks whether a state that doesn’t have domestic partnership benefits has a stronger argument for rational basis. Cooper says if this case is to be decided be “heightened scrutiny”, then it is a harder case to make. This concludes his remarks. Is given 2 minutes for rebuttal by the judges.

11:54: Reinhardt asks, isn’t it different when you take [marriage] away than when you’re giving it? Cooper replies that the people of California are “a tribunal over their Constitution.” Hawkins asks if this were about civil unions, would Cooper have the same argument? Cooper says yes. Hawkins asks if people denied the right of same-sex partners to visit one another in the hospital and had added that to the ballot language in Prop 8, what would Cooper say? Cooper replies that if rights “go beyond” what’s in the federal constitution, then the people have the right to return to what’s a general standard in all states- and that seems to be Cooper’s argument re what the people of California are doing here.

11:46: For those of you following along here and not watching, a quick image of what this all looks like (Cooper arguing):

9th_Circuit_hearing_1

11:44: Cooper seems to be arguing that the courts should respect the will of the people in passing Prop 8, and that in California, the people retain the ultimate power, so courts should defer when voters vote to amend the Constitution. Reinhardt acknowledges that the Constitution can be amended, but asks if there is a valid reason to amend the Constitution.

11:42: Brian’s legal analysis of this section:

Cooper: The central point is that the distinguishing characteristics of opposite sex couples. We are arguing that the rational basis test applies. There is some rational basis, so it must be upheld. Only if the court concludes that there is no rational basis, that there is nothing to say of the definition of marriage from time immemorial, there is no rational basis. But, we have a rational basis. The key reason of marriage was procreation. Society has an interest in a sexual relationship. It needs another generation. Society is threatened by an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy.

Cooper is bringing up the concept that “single parent families” need help. This is fascinating, and really, nowhere in the record.

Judge Reinhardt: That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce. How does allowing marriage equality damage procreation.

Cooper: Opposite sex couples can procreate unintentionally, and create unwanted pregnancies.

Judge Smith: What is the purpose of the initiative that says they have the same rights as opposite sex couple, but they don’t get the title. What is the rational basis for just excluding the word marriage.

Cooper: The word is the institution. If you redefine the word, you change the institution. Historic Tradition.

11:39: It is difficult to follow Cooper’s argument- he is talking himself in circles. Or as Rick put it well to me, the only case he has is a tautology: marriage is between a man and a woman. If it’s not between a man and a woman, it’s not marriage.

11:36: Cooper replies that Amendment 2 (as passed by Colorado voters) was different because it was a sweeping case that affected all basics of civic life for [homosexuals] and that’s why it was struck down in Romer v. Evans.

11:35: Hawkins asks about the famous Romer case. Cooper replies that that case referred to a lot of rights. Hawkins interjects, if you take away a bunch of rights, it’s not okay, but if it’s one right [marriage], then it’s ok? Very interesting point from Hawkins and promising to see him say that.

11:33: Reinhardt asks why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to be married and live together in a happy, healthy home. Cooper replies that same-sex couples cannot procreate w/o a 3rd party and that’s the rational basis. Smith asks what the rational basis is to deny marriage, if same-sex couples have all the rights that opposite-sex couples have, and we’re left with the word “marriage”. Cooper discusses re-definition of “the institution”. “You cannot separate the two” [referring to the name and the institution]. If we do, what we are left with is a genderless institution that bears no comparison to the real institution of marriage.

11:28: Cooper says a rational basis test must be applied here. There is a rational basis to limit definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and it must be upheld.

11:25: And we’re back. Cooper is up to address the constitutional issue. Hawkins asks if people of California could re-institute school segregation by vote. Cooper concedes no, because the Supreme Court has ruled that’s unconstitutional. Hawkins asks how this situation is different. Cooper replies that this case is nothing like, for example, Loving v. Virginia, where the Supremes ruled that there is no rational basis for the gov’t to deny the right of a mixed-race couple to marry. It’s interesting that Hawkins led off with that.

11:14: While we’re on recess, Rick notes over e-mail to me that this is also the courtroom in which en banc hearings take place because it’s so gorgeously ornate. The losing party can appeal to the full 9th Circuit and obtain an en banc hearing of 11 judges.

11:07: Ten-minute recess before the 2nd hour addressing issue of constitutionality. Lots to process.

11:06: Cooper is back up. He says Reinhardt nailed distingushing Karchner and Arizonans. Nobody in Arizonans found any law that showed proponents could appeal. Cooper brings a State Court Supreme Court, the Strauss case. The proponents were allowed to intervene in Strauss. He says if 9th Circuit doesn’t agree with him on standing, then they should ask CA Supreme Court before dismissing this case and allow a single district court decision (Judge Walker’s ruling) to nullify the will of 7 million Californians.

11:04: Here’s Brian Leubitz’s summary:

Boies: CA Supreme Court gave a one sentence denial as to forcing the AG to appeal, there was no rationale provided.

No clerks are technically bound by the injunction, save Alameda or LA. However, the remainder of the state, the power to execute the laws go to AG and Governor. The deputy clerks will be required to act by the AG and Governor. Clerks are ministerial, as defined by Lockyer case. They are required to act as the Governor and/or AG tells them. Thus, the deputy clerk of Imperial County should not be allowed.

Nullification Question: Does AG and Governor not defending nullify the people’s decision in the form of Prop 8? Boies says no, because they have seen the district court’s decision and are not bound under California law to seek further decision. The Supreme Court could have required AG action, but did not do so.

Scope of the injunction:

Boies: If the court concluded that the district court exceeded subject matter jurisdiction, but Boies is not aware of any precedent to edit the injunction. He is relying on AG to affect the injunction. The injunction goes to those who are controlled by the defendants, in this case the AG.

11:01: Boies wraps up by saying this case is similar to In re Marriage Cases. Proper “respondents” are AG, Gov, legislature. Appellants here do not have a particularized injury that the Supreme Court said you must have.

10:57: Reinhardt asks, doesn’t the injunction affect all those who act to perform the marriage (e.g. doesn’t it cover Vargas, the county clerk, and therefore she has standing?). Boies: The injunction itself didn’t go as broad as it might have, so no. Caveat, we haven’t talked about the registrar, who will under this injunction, have to change the form and content of the marriage license. Boies also notes that CA Supreme Court could have ordered the Gov/AG to intervene and defend, but didn’t.

10:55: Reinhardt jokes that if Boies has to depend on the AG and Gov (to not appeal), he’s lucky the [2010] election came out the way it did. Ha.

10:52: Boies notes that one does not have standing to act as defendant unless he/she/organization has “personal, concrete, or particularized injury.” Which, he’s arguing, an Imperial County clerk and ProtectMarriage.com does not have. He notes that U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in this manner over and over.

10:51: Boies notes that in the Arizona case, Justice Ginsburg said proponents aren’t authorized to act under state law.

10:45: Boies replies, citing other California-specific cases in which proponents did not have standing. Reinhardt suggests that perhaps the 9th Circuit court should ask the California Supreme Court about what the standing law is. Notable: “The fact that there’s no one to defend doesn’t give standing [to the defendant-intervenors].”-Boies

10:42: Smith continues that the governor has an effective veto if he does not appeal.

10:41: Smith discusses how if Prop 8 (and all initiatives) could not be vetoed or amended by the legislature, right? So if that’s so, the AG’s actions and Gov’s actions have nullified the basic efforts of the initiative to be placed on the ballot and to obtain passage. He’s arguing that if Jerry Brown and Schwarenegger didn’t appeal, they effectively nullified it.

10:39: Boies is arguing that because all the clerks are ministerial officials who simply issue marriage licenses to whomever the state determines gets marriage licenses, that function will be the same now or later. Meaning, their duty will not be impacted, as Tyler is arguing.

10:37: Boies: Lockyer tells that county clerks are just “ministerial officials… who must apply the law as set forth by the AG’s office and the  government.”

10:33: David Boies is up. Bring it, Boies. He is quickly asked if Judge Walker is wrong about the registrar controlling the functions of county clerks and she is not bound by the injunction, and if she is not, how does she have standing? Boies says that’s correct, and she does not have standing. Reinhardt asks, are the clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles counties bound by injunction? Boies says no. Marriage is a statewide, not local/municipal, concern. Hawkins asks if the injunction was enforced, could county clerks refuse a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Boies says yes, but if she did so, the AG would act to make the enforcement uniform, which would be a state proceeding.

10:30 Brian sent in his analysis of the last 15 minutes:

Robert Tyler: Attorney for Imperial County, actual client is a deputy clerk.  Their client is Ms. Vargas, a deputy clerk.  Judge Hawkins is grilling him on whether Imperial County even has the right client.

Judge Smith: “All political functions remain vested in an officer.” Imperial County doesn’t have authority to act without the clerk. Here, the clerk has not given power to the deputy clerk. Deputy is a mere agent, and cannot act without the clerk.

The judges are looking at whether the deputy clerk is bound as a state officer. But the bigger issue seems to be that the Imperial County intervention doesn’t actually have the clerk here.

“When you are asked a question, and you don’t know the answer, say so.” Highlight of the day.

10:29: Closing up, Tyler argues (the crux of his case) that the county clerk will be affected by the outcome of this case, which will alter Vargas’ (the county clerk) duties as she is placed in a conundrum. Hawkins asks, yes or no, whether Vargas is bound by Walker’s injunction (pointing out that she isn’t placed in a conundrum). Tyler concedes no, she is not.

10:28: Reinhardt asks if Board of Supervisors agrees with the Imperial County clerk. Tyler says yes, in fact she is appointed by the BOS. Then he’s handed a note saying, no, she’s elected, and tells the judges so. Whoopie.

10:26: Reinhardt is lambasting Tyler for not knowing the answers and instead of saying he doesn’t know, jumping around the issue. Hawkins asked if a deputy clerk in Los Angeles or Alameda county come in and seek standing, saying they don’t agree with “my boss”? Tyler says yes. Hawkins asks, humorously, how long they would last taking such an action? Ha.

10:24: Interesting exchange:

Judge Smith: Are they state officers performing state functions?

Tyler: No, they are local officers performing state functions.

S: How do I get around the language [in what I'm reading] that they ARE state officers?

T: They are performing state functions, e.g. marriage.

S: So they’re state officers if they do that?

T: I don’t know if that’s what the case turns on. This case turns on whether her duties will be altered as a result of this outcome of the case.

Reinhardt: Clerk is not attempting the court to get the ruling. In Lockyer, it’s the opposite.

T: In Richardson v. Ramirez, there were 3 clerks who were sued. SecState required registration by felons in order to vote. In that case, a local county clerk was able to take the case when there were no other defenders. Same thing here! We have a case where there is a county clerk wanting to intervene who will be affected by the outcome of the case.

10:18: Robert Tyler, arguing for Imperial County to have the right to have standing for representing the entire state. He is getting pressed hard by Judge Hawkins on whether the individual he is representing (the clerk in Imperial County) actually has the ability to act, which Judge Smith is appearing to concur with.

10:14: Brian Leubitz, P8TT’s legal analyst, sent in the following analysis:

Cooper: Looking at two standing issues. First, the big issue of whether the 9th Circuit, the standing issues that we’ve been talking about for a while now.  However, Cooper is interested in looking at the district court jurisdiction as well.

On the 9th Circuit: Cooper is looking at a New Jersey case that was decided before Arizonans for Official English.  The big question here is whether proponents of a measure have standing, and Cooper is asked as much.  His response is rather stunning:  “I don’t have a case to show Article 3 standing for proponents.”

Now, in Arizonans, Justice Ginsburg says that proponents do not have Article III standing, that is to say whether they have standing under the judiciary article of the Constitution.  Cooper is trying to avoid that comparison, by pointing to the prior New Jersey case (Karcher).  In Karcher, the Legislative officers were given standing.  As noted, Karcher was before Arizonans, so it must be read in context of Arizonans.

Cooper is pointing to the Strauss case in state court, where the proponents successfully defended Prop 8 in state court.  The California Supreme Court allowed proponents to defend Prop 8, but blocked other anti-equality groups from intervening, showing that proponents have special standing.

10:13: Cooper finishes and would like to reserve the balance of his time  for rebuttal, which is granted by Judge Reinhardt.

10:11: Cooper is asked if he sought to enjoin the case. He replies no. He notes that the NJ Attorney General declined to appeal the case (Karcher v. May), just as the CA AG (Jerry Brown, currently) declined to appeal. And yet the Supremes noted that the NJ legislative leaders did have the authority and were the proper parties not just in the trial court, but in the 3rd Circuit. He continues, when no one else would defend the statute in the Strauss case, the only party defending the constitutionality of the statute in Strauss were the proponents. In the marriage cases, at the court of appeals level, court of appeals denied intervention to a group that was not the official proponents, but made no ruling whether the official proponents in the default of the state officials would be authorized to come in and represent the state’s statute.

10:06: Cooper is asked if he knows of any California law that allows Article 3 standing. Cooper argues that the Strauss case is similar. Judge interrupts and notes that Strauss only talks about proponents as agents of a proposition, not as agents of the state, which defendant-intervenors are asked to do here. Cooper is being interrupted repeatedly and pressed hard to make the case that this case is similar to the ones he is citing.

10:03: Interrupted and asked to explain the case further, Cooper is asked for the “best case” example of a federal case re allowing proponents Article 3 standing. Cooper says he doesn’t have one, but this is the one he’s bringing forward.

10:00: Charles Cooper gets up to speak. He notes that the two “jurisdictional” issue at stake, as we all know, are (a) standing (b) constitutionality. With respect to the standing issue, he notes a Supreme Court case in which New Jersey state education officials were required to defend the moment of silence statute. The court allowed the Assembly speaker/Senate president on behalf of the legislature to defend the state’s interests on the statute. Supremes rejected the claim that they did NOT have standing. Reason is b/c NJ Supreme Court previously allowed the legislative officers to intervene on behalf of the legislature to represent the state’s interests in a redistricting case.

9:59: And here we go. Gavel and all rise.

9:54: Arisha writes in that about 20 members of the public who got up early enough were lucky enough to gain entrance into courtroom one to watch the historic hearing live. Evidently, some staunch equality supporters began lining up at 4 am to get a seat. Other hopefuls are being sent into several media overflow rooms
to view the hearing. As a reminder, you can watch on C-SPAN, the California Channel streaming online (which now has images of the scene Rick describes below).

9:39: Arisha writes in that there are six total attorneys for the plaintiffs (us) and three for the defendant-intervenors.

9:38: More on the scene inside the courtroom from Rick (for those of you who are wondering why the verbal description, they don’t allow photography inside the courtroom):

There are only four rows of pews here.  Unlike the courtroom of Judge Walker, which was larger, lighter and more modern—that 1960s light wood look—this one could be in Spain or Washington, DC.  The floors are one inch square mosaic tiles covered in most places by gray, short-nap carpet.  The wooden pews are stained in a mahogany, with fluted, low arm rests on either end.  The benches are much more comfortable than the ones in the Burton building.
There are only three people seated in the audience section behind the defendant-intervenor side, whereas our side is almost full.  The general public will now be admitted to the room to fill the remaining three pews on the defendant-intervenor side.  Interestingly, our side is on the left, theirs on the right. I’m sure that must be accidental. Regardless, it’s nice to see Ted Olson here on the left.

The pool TV cameras are situated at the front, facing the lawyers’ podium and in the back, over my left shoulder, facing the judges’ bench.

Over there is Jenny Pizer of LAMBDA Legal schmoozing with Cleve.  Behind me is Linda Hirschman, the brilliant author whose book about the history of the LGBT movement is being published by Harper Collins.  She’s still working on it, and it’s going to be terrific. There’s also Jo Becker, the NYTimes correspondent who, in her spare time, is writing a book chronicling the Prop. 8 Trial.

I have never been that excited by Hollywood celebrity and the like.  I don’t watch enough TV or see enough movies to identify with it all.  But I admit that I love this.  Having live-blogged the trial itself, knowing Ted Olson for so long, knowing Cleve and Lance and Bruce and Chad and now the plaintiffs and most of all, having lived through Prop. 8 with all of you, this is exciting.  It’s history.

With the change in political climate in this country, which I think the right-wing has misinterpreted, we see marriage under threat in New Hampshire.  We saw three judges be roundly rooted out in Iowa by NOM and its secret money slush fund.  But here, in the stained-glass skylight formal courtroom, justice is at work.  The slush funds don’t prevail here.

9:14: Another dispatch from Rick on what things are looking like inside: “We’re in the courtroom.  It’s a small room, with baroque, vaulted ceilings, oranate plaster arches that surround three deep hued mosaic images of the history of justice in this state.  Arisha and I are seated in the first two seats of the front row right behind the plaintiff’s family.

The entire gang is here:  we said hello to Ted Olson, whom I greeted with that “farewell” remark of my old friend Howard Baker, Jr:  ”Don’t screw up.”  I think he won’t.

David Boies will begin for our side, followed by Ted. Ted Boutros, Chris Dusseault, Terry Stewart, Cleve Jones, Lance Black,  Chad Griffin, the sons of Kris and Sandy, the parents of Paul Katami in from New Jersey, and of course the four plaintiffs themselves are here.

Ron Prentice made a point of shaking my hand, saying “Good morning, Rick.”  I hope he’s right.

Andy Pugno won’t make eye contact, but there he is.  So far, his post-Prop. 8 record is unblemished by success.  He lost the Walker ruling. He lost his assembly race here in California.  So let’s hope his streak continues.

We’re sitting in front of Ryan Kendall, the witness who so eloquently told of his forced attempted “conversion” by NARTH, which you saw at P8TT.

Next to us are Judge Walker’s three clerks plus his wonderful administrator.

9:07: I’ve got photos rolling in from Arisha I’m starting to get up. Here’s Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs, with AFER at a pre-trial presser:

AFER press conference

And crowds of marriage equality supporters:

Marriage equality supporters

Also, it’s our very own Kathleen along with Ann S. from the comments!

Kathleen + LLB from comments

And Alan!

Alan from comments

9:06: Rick sent in the following: We are in line now behind the plaintiffs and lawyers waiting to check in. A half dozen satellite trucks, a hundred or so at a demonstration for our side. A huge garbage truck just went by and fog horn honked in support of our side. Standing next to Imperial County lawyers who said, “we’re in a funny position. We’re defendants but we’re not part of the case.” To which another apparent lawyer said, “tell me about it. We’re here to uphold the law.

9:05 AM PST: A few more items of note before the trial starts in less than an hour.

  • If you missed yesterday’s preview of how things will proceed to today, you can find it here.
  • A few months ago in the period between the Walker ruling and today, we had NCLR’s Shannon Minter (who was the lead attorney on the original 2008 In re Marriage Cases, the case striking down restrictions on same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court) and deputy Chris Stoll stop by to answer your Prop 8 legal questions on standing, appeal process, timeline, what strict scrutiny means, and more. If you’ve got a question about what’s coming up, you can probably find that question answered in the thread.
  • My colleague Chris also has some useful FAQ on potential outcomes.
  • The defendant-intervenor brief filed for this hearing can be found here. The response brief filed by Olson/Boies et al can be found here.
  • If you’re feeling nostalgic or want some feeling for how courtroom back-and-forth may go, you can read Prop8TrialTracker’s live-blogging of the original hearing with Judge Walker from inside the courtroom itself. All those threads can be found here. That was the trial that led to more than 4 million pageviews and 80,000 comments here.
  • Recalling that Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 on both equal protection and due process grounds, it’s worth recalling Judge Walker’s conclusion in his ruling as we enter this one: “Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” On due process: “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”

724 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 1:17 am

    WOOOOOOO!!!….EQUALITY NOW!!! ….. <3…Ronnie

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:10 am

    That's not me in the photo…I am in Arizona : )

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:11 am

    oops – forgot to subscribe! I know I will need the subscribe today!

    Hugs to Greg – and everyone! Got on my 'Lesbians Love Boies' (very small) t-shirt!

  • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:12 am

    again!

  • 5. adambink  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Ha, whoops. Apparently Arisha misidentified you.

  • 6. Freddy  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:18 am

    LLB, I would have been very jealous it you had gone without me!

  • 7. Freddy  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I think that might be Ann S., from the earlier thread, they were meeting up yesterday to attend the trial together.

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Same here! Wish I was there, but I had to work all weekend and very early this morning so I could take the rest of the day off.

  • 9. Christian  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Back to the good ol' days of January 2010. Working on my master's research and writing a research paper while switching over to the web browser after every paragraph and hitting F5 to see what's new. :)

  • 10. DazedWheels  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Hi, my friends.
    <3 David

  • 11. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I absolutely SNORTED out loud when I read "…his post-Prop. 8 record is unblemished by success…"

    The snow is coming down outside my window, I have work that can make me LOOK busy for the next few hours without taking any of my attention, I am running down to the cafeteria to grab some lunch, and then settle in for a good read here as you fine folks post the news for me.

    I am excited.

  • 12. Ed  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:24 am

    well, I just read through NOM's questions. Based on how they are worded, it doesn't seem they are expecting a win….just turn on the spin cycle….

  • 13. JonT  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Let the fun begin…
    :)

  • 14. Phil L  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I am giddy with anticipation, but I work tonight and must go to sleep. I also have a cold… stupid organisms and their ability to make us sick.

  • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I am meeting up with a group of friends to watch. Talk to you all soon. My stomach is churning – and could hardly sleep last night.

  • 16. Bob  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Wooot to all you folks, and especially to that fabulous photo of Alan, and Kathleen, who's the third womn with the long hair would that be Ann, you're all looking so smashing,

  • 17. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:28 am

    I wish I was there!!! Luckily it is live on the web! The truth will be heard :)

  • 18. Ed  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:28 am

    NOMganisms?

  • 19. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Our felow March On family members Ami and Ruby are there!

  • 20. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:30 am

    That's my husband Brandon suckin on a cough drop. I dragged him out even though he might be getting a cold. Dave, Sheryl and I are sitting in the overflow room. Dave gave up his seat so he could sit in the peanut gallery. It will be easier to comment and *facepalm* up here on the 2nd floor.

    If you are reading this, see you guys after on the steps!

  • 21. Sagesse  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:36 am

    "NOM has their own questions for the hearing. And of course, you can leave a comment telling them what you think."

    These deserve some thought and a response… later, subscribing from work.

    Not their strongest, most cogent diatribe ever.

  • 22. ashleyfmiller  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:36 am

    I made a flow chart of possible results, if anyone out there is interested. Or if they just want to tell me what I forgot. I probably forgot something, it's just so hard trying to get my mind around all the different things that could happen.
    http://ashleyfmiller.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/

  • 23. Sagesse  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Luv the pictures. Keep 'em coming :).

  • 24. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:40 am

    I am so jealous!! Can't be there and can't be at the computer/TV at the beginning. I have the flu and for the next hour I have to be outside in 35 degree weather! GGRRR…

    I'll be back ASAP.

    PS could Alan and Kathleen and Sheryl/Ann (whoever is in the pic. with them) BE any cuter??!! I think NOT! <3

  • 25. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:41 am

    The mike check guy is cute ;-)

  • 26. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Where do you see the pictures?

  • 27. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:43 am

    https://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/1

    - 9th Circuit Court of Appeal: Prop 8 Oral Arguments

  • 28. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:44 am

    I am one of the 18,000 married couples … stomach is in knots!

  • 29. SE  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Yup you can leave a comment. But the moderate must review it before it gets posted. What a joke.

  • 30. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:45 am

    The picture olwith Kathleen has Dave P. and Ann S.

  • 31. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:45 am

    ditto on the snorting!! :)

  • 32. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:46 am

    He is with CSPAN I think.

  • 33. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:48 am

    OK, who else feels sort of like a kid at Christmas here?
    :)

  • 34. rick jacobs  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Let's hope that the knots untie with victory, just as the wedding knots tie permanently for you and so many others.

  • 35. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:48 am

    this is so exciting and stressful!!!!! OMG

  • 36. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Yes, equality will prevail!

  • 37. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:49 am

    can we say anxiety much!? omg!

  • 38. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:51 am

    I kind of feel like I'm about to go on a virtual journey with the world!

  • 39. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:51 am

    me too LLB….standing by CSPAN listening to Obama in NC

  • 40. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Getting ready to copy and paste the live stream link into my browser and fire up the coverage. Let's go, Equality Supporters!!!!!

  • 41. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    OK could Dave, Kathleen, Ann, Alan or Brandon BE any cuter? Still NO. :)

  • 42. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Equality just has to prevail!!!

  • 43. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:55 am

    I've been watching it since lik 9:15…i hope none asks me something on my conf call LOL

  • 44. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

    ALRIGHT!! I'm all set. CSPAN is on (am I on the right one? Its Medvedev talking now, right), the tree is lit up, coffee is next to me, muffin is in hand…as Joe would say from Family Guy…LETS DO THIS!!

  • 45. Ed  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

    I have 3 cspan channels…..which one is it???

  • 46. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Is there anything up right now, or does it just say "Connect Failed" because the cameras aren't on yet?

    I'm hoping that I'll be able to watch it here at work, but since most streaming video is blocked, I fear I won't be able to.

    I'd SO rather be at home watching CSPAN!

  • 47. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

    =-) Yes, lets hope!

  • 48. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

    I'm loving that the room is packed with Equality supporters, and Prop 8 could only draw in three people.

  • 49. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Click on this…it's totally working!
    https://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/1

    - 9th Circuit Court of Appeal: Prop 8 Oral Arguments

  • 50. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:58 am

    YAY!!! Its on!

  • 51. Joel  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Mark and I are one of the 18,000, too. I'm not really worried about our marriage status has been affirmed by the CSSC.

  • 52. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:58 am

    CSPN feed just started on main channel!!

  • 53. SpoonmanTX  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:59 am

    It's so nice to be able to WATCH what is going on this time. I guess since there are no witnesses to scare off this time… ;-)

  • 54. Zachary  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Here we go!

  • 55. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Its the first one the main C-SPAN stream.

  • 56. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:03 am

    YAY!!! First zinger!

  • 57. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Cooper looks and is acting rather nervous

  • 58. Christian  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Do you really want to tell the judge "I don't have a case"?

  • 59. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Judge: "What's your best case for federal jurisdiction?"
    Cooper: "Your Honer, I don't have a case."

    Similar to "I don't need evidence?"

  • 60. Suzanne (not for muc  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Already they're admitting they have no case. Wow.

  • 61. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Does anyone know in what order the judges are sitting…from left to right?

  • 62. tess  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:06 am

    SoCal lesbian watching live feed – I have a milestone due at work today, damn the timing!

    With you all in love and solidarity!

  • 63. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Is that Reinhardt (sp?) with the lisp? NOM will love that!!!!

  • 64. Felyx  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:06 am

    "Your Honor, I don't have a case…" – Charles Cooper

    LOL! He should just stop right there!

  • 65. Joel  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:07 am

    5 minutes in and he's already sweating bullets! Is this man really the lawyer everyone says he is?

  • 66. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:07 am

    The feed up here will cut out for a few seconds every now and then. It's stressful when you miss a sentence!

  • 67. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:07 am

    I was just thinking the same thing…lol ……<3…Ronnie

  • 68. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:08 am

    This is exactly how he looked at the closing arguments. The reenactment didn't do justice.

  • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:09 am

    I loved that! No, they don't!

  • 70. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Cooper is using the famed "I got nuthin' yer honor," argument that served him SO well with Judge Walker.

    LOL

  • 71. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:10 am

    That was my exact thought.

  • 72. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:11 am

    OK… I just checked NOM's supposedly live blog… nothing at all going on there?

  • 73. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:11 am

    we loved that too!!!

  • 74. karen in kalifornia  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    watching

  • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Hi Kate! too funny : )

  • 76. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    If this is how Chuck begins, this is going to be as entertaining as the trial. "I don't have a best case…" ?!

    What kills me is how many times I've heard Cooper is such a brilliant lawyer. Maybe so, but maybe he needs to hang it up on litigation.

  • 77. Felyx  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Even the Chewbacca defense was better!!!

  • 78. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Reinhardt is in the middle.

  • 79. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:12 am

    "better to say you don't know then to guess…" LOL

  • 80. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Cooper's rambling is wearing me out.

    That said, Reinhardt: "Better to say you don't know than to guess" – Priceless!

  • 81. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Judging Cooper as an attorney and not just based on his arguments, he is REALLY not impressing me. Other people have already brought up the "I don't have a case" comment. (Which to me says "I should just sit down," but that's just me.)

    He's using notes, which may be standard, but just looks bad.

    He keeps says "uh" during his argument. That makes it sound like he doesn't know what he is saying.

  • 82. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:13 am

    WHICH ONE IS SMITH!?!?!?

  • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:13 am

    which one is smith?

  • 84. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:14 am

    lol, I want to know that too!

  • 85. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Anyone know if there's a live stream I can watch on my android-platform smartphone?

  • 86. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:15 am

    sorry..didn't mean to yell.

  • 87. Felyx  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:15 am

    The answer is NO isn't it!!! Wow… go get him judge!

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Hawkins has a beard

  • 89. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:15 am

    you can try http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=7823589

  • 90. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Left to right
    Hawkins, Reinhardt, Smith

    We just got a flyer in the overflow room

  • 91. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Hi Gregory! Isn't this FUN!!!!! Even with my lousy broadband streaming……..

  • 92. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:16 am

    That was great!

  • 93. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I'm listening, heart pounding and near tears. In my mind I'm holding hands with you all. Go GO GO EQUALITY!!!

  • 94. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:16 am

    "You're repeating yourself now"………FLOL!!!!!!……<3…Ronnie

  • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I love smith! if the Imperial County clerk isn't here, we have a problem!

  • 96. SpoonmanTX  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:17 am

    TweetChat going on NOW to discuss in real time! #Prop8Watch

  • 97. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:17 am

    this guy is worse than cooper!!! LOL

  • 98. Trish  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:17 am

    From listening to the judges, it is readily apparent that they do not believe that Imperial County should be able to intervene.

  • 99. Jon  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Is "Arizonon" English? I looked in my dictionary and it isn't there.

    So "Arizonans for official English" would be an oxymoron, or what?

  • 100. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:18 am

    And even Judge Smith of BYU is nailing them!!!!

  • 101. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:18 am

    It's good to see that the pro-Prop 8 side has hired Lionel Hutz to represent them. At least he's wearing pants… I assume so anyway, C-Span's camera angle will not confirm this.

  • 102. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I don't know. His arguments are bad, but he doesn't sound as bad. At least he isn't rambling.

  • 103. Bob Barnes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:18 am

    OH my GAWD…. you'd think they'd get their argument ironed out.

  • 104. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:19 am

    I hope the judges don't make him cry.

  • 105. Joel  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:20 am

    How is a county clerk's job description going to change? Issuing a marriage license is issuing a marriage license, regardless of the couples' genders.

  • 106. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:20 am

    No worries; it's a word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Arizonan
    (Editor by trade ;-)

  • 107. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:20 am

    *snicker* He has to say something!

  • 108. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Hmmm… "Don't forget!!! Prop 8 coverage begins at 1pm ET/10am PT today!" From Brian Brown, @ NOM. Sent at 10:19 AM PDT. Did he forget? ;)

  • 109. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Yea, they're really hittin' this guy hard.

    His argument really isn't that easy to follow.

  • 110. Jenny  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I believe Smith is to Reinhardt's left. Not 100% sure though. Anyone certain?

  • 111. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Really loving Smith!

  • 112. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:22 am

    No…he just doesn't want anyone to see the trial.

  • 113. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:22 am

    They're all hostile to the proponents…

  • 114. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I swear, I can hear Arisha and Ann S. and Kathleen and Alan E. and all our other pals there LAUGHING in the background of the KGO/ABC feed1

  • 115. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Surprising, huh?

  • 116. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Having a really hard time figuring out what they are talking about.

  • 117. alyson  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:23 am

    subscribing. they got nothin!!!!!!! Woot woot!!!

  • 118. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Yes! very fun! ((HUGS))

  • 119. Suzanne (not for muc  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Thumbs up to our supporters in equality, Arisha, Ann S., Kathleen, Alan E.!

  • 120. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    This is so frustrating! They don't even know WHAT a County Clerk is and where they appear in the State's chain of command. I'm a frickin' VOLUNTEER at a County and I KNOW THIS. How could THEY not know this?? And that they ARE carrying out State duties (on the local on-the-ground level)?? DUH!! How much money are these idiots getting paid?? *raising hand frantically* I know the answer, I know the answer!! Pick me, pick me!!!!!!!!

  • 121. Jenny  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    I honestly don't know what they are talking about :) Legal stuff like this is not my strong suit. I'm waiting for the analysis later. But it's great to be able to SEE what's going on LIVE. Can't wait for next hour's arguments.

  • 122. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    LOL Mouse–that's because they don't know either.

  • 123. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Agreed. Too awesome. Reminds me of teachers in grade school who were witnessing a student project so horrible, they had no choice but to intervene.

  • 124. Dan  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Oh man the judge just compared prop 8 to the death penalty. This one is in the bag!

  • 125. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Tough to remember when you're hungover, unshaven, and in your underpants.

  • 126. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    "When you are asked a question and you don't know the answer, say so!"

    Love it!

  • 127. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    WOW. I almost feel bad for these guys…their getting grilled!

  • 128. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    NOM spin: "Activist jack-Mormon Smith!!!!"

  • 129. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    (I really believe it is.)

  • 130. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    How many times does a Judge have to tell them: "If you don't know the answer, then say you don't know the answer? Don't guess at the answer."

  • 131. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:27 am

    "How long do you think he would last taking that action?"

    Seriously people, maybe this is some well-veiled experiment in avant-garde sketch comedy. That's the only possible explanation for this ineptitude.

  • 132. Felyx  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:28 am

    We want Imperial County to have standing… even if none of the people of Imperial County want to even bother to show up!!! LOL

    LOSERS!!!!

  • 133. Dan  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:28 am

    "I was mistaken"
    DAMN RIGHT you're mistaken, sir!

  • 134. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Where's the clerk?

  • 135. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:28 am

    "Like your colleague did" was icing on that cake!

  • 136. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Ack – it played the commercial, but nothing loading as to the trial quite yet.

    This is frustrating. =(

  • 137. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:29 am

    I do, I can explain later. They're arguing that the Imperial County Clerk has independence to file against the State's wishes to not challenge the decision, basically. Which she doesn't. She's a ministerial officer. Right now the attorney is saying that the COUNTY has standing, and the panel is saying that the Clerk herself is the named appellant and must appear in her own authority, and it has nothing to do with the rest of her County…and she clearly doesn't have that authority..

  • 138. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Reminds me of the Wendy's commercial's. "Where's the beef?"

  • 139. Felyx  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Judge just slammed him saying he's taking up others people valuable time!!!

    Maroons!!!

  • 140. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Oh good, an intelligent person.

  • 141. Dan  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:30 am

    GAYS LOVE BOIES!!

  • 142. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Yeah Bois!

  • 143. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    (ministerial officer==someone who carries out duties for the State but not as an independent official…i.e., the State is her boss. I'm a notary and it's the same sort of thing…I'm a state officer, but not independent to challenge or defy State law.)

  • 144. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    "My time is almost up, your Honor." Translation: "Please, please, please let me step down. I can't take your questions."

  • 145. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    you GO Boies!

  • 146. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    that's DEPUTY clerk….

  • 147. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Totally!

  • 148. Alan E  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I don't think Mr. Tyler has argued in front of federal judges very much.

  • 149. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:32 am

    BOIES STEPS UP TO THE PLATE!!! GO DAVEY!!!!!

  • 150. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:32 am

    I Love Boies!

  • 151. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    I love the way Boies wears his glasses down on his nose. Too cute. Reminds me of Bob Newhart.

  • 152. SpoonmanTX  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Boies is back and your gonna be in trouble … hey na hey na Dave Boies is back!

    TwitterChat is on at #Prop8Watch

  • 153. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    You know what I'm getting? Judges are smart. Very smart. Tea Party/NOMers are anti-intellectual by definition and practice. Clear.

  • 154. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Wow, very perceptive and true!

  • 155. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Yes, that's it! I couldn't put my finger on it. His voice is even a bit similar…..

  • 156. Bob Barnes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:34 am

    and anti-science and anti-democratic….

  • 157. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:35 am

    This is intense.

  • 158. Dan  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Can anyone tell me what happened in Lockear?

  • 159. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Very correct!

  • 160. Santa Barbara Mom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:36 am

    My heart is just pounding……………..I wish they could talk faster!!!!

  • 161. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:37 am

    So… err… I guess Imperial County should have stood in bed today, rather than coming to court and making absolute fools of themselves?

    Is it bad that this is making me giggle?

  • 162. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:38 am

    I'm worried they're going to rule very narrowly here.

  • 163. Santa Barbara Mom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:38 am

    The BYU graduate is 61 yrs old, so I would guess he is the one on the left facing the court room.

  • 164. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:39 am

    I'm listening and writing at the same time, but I think it refers to the Marriage Cases: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/re-marri

    Will try to find a better reference.

  • 165. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:40 am

    In this situation, there is only 1 decision to make – do the DI's have standing or not. The arguments about the constitutionality of Prop8 don't come until 2.

  • 166. Zachary  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:40 am

    I was just about to say that as well. There's a hint of Albert Brooks in there, too.

  • 167. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Can COA9 direct Gov/AG to appeal?

  • 168. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:43 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

  • 169. Dan  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:43 am

    2 o clock like 11am PST??? DAMNIT I have class then!!! And my professor is a lesbian. Maybe she'll let us out early.

  • 170. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:43 am

    That was clever lol About the Arizona case.

  • 171. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:44 am

    A judge saying that a governor and the DA choosing not to appeal is the same as them having a veto… that bothers me.

    A federal court made a decision. Not fighting that decision is very different from veto.

  • 172. Jenny  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Thank you :) That helps me to get a basic understanding.

  • 173. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Me too, but it seems like they're also straying into the issues of Horton…oh, and Boies just pointed that out. Maybe they are trying to make him state stronger arguments so they feel comfortable with making a decision in his favor? I don't quite understand why they are dwelling on CA state laws rather than Federal law.

  • 174. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:47 am

    RE the 10:41 question from Smith.

    No, the initiative WAS on the ballot. That the Gov and AG did not take action AFTER the vote does not nullify the initiative process. The people voted, the courts took it up, the legislative branch declined to defend it because they believed it undefensible. That the initiative was unconstitutional did not affect its being voted on.

    My two cents.

  • 175. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:47 am

    I can listen live through KQED Radio!!!

    I'm SO not going to get any work done for a while.

  • 176. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:49 am

    You're right Erik, sorry. I panicked. The penguin on top of my television set just exploded too.

  • 177. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:49 am

    If they give them standing (like in Arizona) they want–it seems–to have an argument with SCOTUS to say they were wrong in AZ. I think they want to give them standing.

  • 178. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:49 am

    I can't refresh pp8t fast enough! This is great.

  • 179. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    But that technically gives them "veto" power…which they don't have.

  • 180. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    OMG I said something very fairly written on the wall of the protect marriage FB page and they just blocked me. What the hell is wrong with these people.

  • 181. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Smith's conclusion that the Gov had automatic veto power by not appealing is WAY wrong. If that were the case, the Proponents would not have had standing in Walker's court. They did. They do not now because they are not HARMED by Walker's decision.

    Argh?

  • 182. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    So i don't understand, are the jusices asking if they should defer to the supreme court for standing?

  • 183. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

    There it is! No injury! Go Boies go!

  • 184. Christian  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:51 am

    I see the judge's point of view. By the Gov & AG not defending the law in court, they have helped nullified a proposition. They are not given the ability to nullify a proposition, therefore the lack of action by the Gov & AG have gone against this. However, that in itself may not give the intervenors standing in court. Seems like a catch-22 to me.

  • 185. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:51 am

    to the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court

  • 186. Zachary  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:52 am

    That's too bad. What was the gist of your post?

  • 187. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:52 am

    If they give them standing, do you think the SCOTUS will stand firm like in AZ?

  • 188. Jen  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:53 am

    They're afraid. Something they feel is very important is "threatened" by the changes in the world, and they don't know how to welcome them. Sad, really.

  • 189. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:53 am

    thanks

  • 190. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Anonygrl, is the sky falling? Why are these judges wanting to pass this on to the CA Supremes and SCOTUS????

  • 191. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:53 am

    They cannot stand up to reasonable debate. They crumple under it, so the only thing they can do is plug their ears and say "la la la" whenever it comes along. Don't take it personally, tell us here what you said, beause we are interested in both sides of the debate here, (if it is reasonable and not trollish.) :)

  • 192. ursomniac  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:54 am

    I don't understand the logic whereupon the AG/Gov HAS to appeal. The entire point of an appeal is that it's an option.

    Otherwise EVERY state-level case would HAVE to end up at the SCOTUS and therefore would eliminate any need for a state-level or US Circuit court at all!

  • 193. Jen  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Stuck in Indiana for the week, or I'd be right there hoping and praying alongside you guys and gals! It's so exciting, getting to see this process live. Watching history being made gives me a rush, I guess. ;)

    Equality!!!

  • 194. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Sweetheart! The sky is not falling! And I am writing from work, so haven't gotten that bit yet… give me a few to catch up, ok? But do not fear. If they push it to SCOTUS, we will win there, so not to worry, ok?

  • 195. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:54 am

    I said "I'm sorry but proponents are doing terribly". Then I mentioned that if everyone who had previously commented wasn't watching the trial now then they have no business commenting on my rights because they are willing to easily throw in their two cents but when it comes to actual research or work (or voting) to support their opinions they are unwilling to do said research.

  • 196. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I love how Boies stops and kinda indexes the legal library in his head when asked a question.. You can almost see the gears turning.

  • 197. Sarah  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:55 am

    If you guys would like a real time chat, I own a IRC server. I've made a room for everyone to chat about the trial as it happens.

    If there's no one in the room, invite a friend to talk!

  • 198. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:55 am

    That is what they do….& yet they bitch & moan about freedom of speech…hypocrites!!!…. : / ….Ronnie

  • 199. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I love you, Anonygrl.

  • 200. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Why pass to the CA Supreme Court? As I understand Boies's argument, he is talking about the duties of the Deputy Clerk of Imperial Co under CA law. Federal Courts typically send questions of state law to the supreme court of the state in question.

    Why they would send it to the USSC? I have no idea.

  • 201. Sarah  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Thor is me/The admin. I'm in classes today, but you can address them if you need anything.

  • 202. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:57 am

    I prefer chatting here. Sorry

  • 203. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Yes! No "ums" or messing around. He knows his sh*t.

  • 204. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Did Judge Reinhardt ever give his expanded reasons for not recusing himself? I'm so glad he didn't!

  • 205. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:59 am

    OK.. here is what I think.

    The Prop 8 initiative vote happened. A small majority of the people voted yes, so it went into effect. Done.

    Perry et al objected and took it to court. ENTIRELY separate from the vote itself. The Gov & AG declined to defend. They can do that, and it has NOTHING to do with the initiative itself. The initiative process was over and done with, and if no one had sued over it, the Gov would have just lived with the outcome as he HAS NO VETO POWER OVER IT (or he would have exercised it). The fact that someone DID challenge it does not REQUIRE the Gov. to defend it. This is so much fluffy noise and not worth bothering with.

  • 206. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Possible insight from a comment on Dan Walters' live chat — http://tinyurl.com/242u4s5 :

    Guest: "the court may be looking for a way to slow this case down by sending a certified question to the California Supreme Court to answer its questions about standing–this would put the case back with the state supreme court to decide whether or not to answer the question and then to answer it–this will bring the federal appeal to a stop while the state supreme court deals with this standing issue"

    Dan Walters: "They seem to be seeking some direction in that regard. … Going back to state Supreme Court would help settle the issue of standing and clarify whether the appeal could continue."

  • 207. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Boies hitting the real point on standing now!

  • 208. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:02 am

    None of these people have seen a current CA marriage license! No changes need to be made by the registrar! It's already been changed to "Party One" and "Party Two"–gender neutral–and offers "Dissolution of State Registered Domestic Partnership" as one of the options for "status of previous marriages."

  • 209. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:03 am

    It's very much like the hypothetical death penalty question earlier: If the AG or Gov thought such a proposition was unconstitutional, would they HAVE to defend it or could they on their own determine it was unconstitutional on their own or should they seek that from the courts. It's a good question.

  • 210. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:03 am

    When they refer to "the injunction," what does that mean?

  • 211. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:03 am

    I think referring to lack of appeal as veto is offensive to Judge Walker and the entire trial that happened and found the initiative to be unconstitutional.

  • 212. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Not sure. I don't know the AZ case well enough to compare it at the moment. I guess I will have to go read up on that one now.

    My legal education is proceeding apace here. And I am not a lawyer, and, (even though I've lived in NYC for 20 years, I'm pretty much the only person in theatre who has never been on Law and Order, so…) I've never played one on TV.

  • 213. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:04 am

    I think he's right. Passing the buck. Oy.

  • 214. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:04 am

    cooper – he needed the judges to do his work. what a nimwit

  • 215. Sarah  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Awww alright, maybe pop in and say hi if you get a chance :)

  • 216. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:07 am

    He really did, didn't he? Opportunistic bastard.

  • 217. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:07 am

    And the suggestion that "not defending/not appealing" is like not enforcing is idiotic.

    Go down to the county clerk today and you will see that this initiative is being enforced.

  • 218. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:08 am

    What a beautiful courtroom.

  • 219. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Walker's ruling was an injunction against enforcing Prop 8.

  • 220. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:08 am

    … but you're not an elected official, Mr Cooper! Isn't the difference in the NJ case that the people who wanted to defend the law in question actually WERE elected officials?

    Separately… am I correct in saying that we have a combination of wanting the other side to have standing so that this case can progress up the judicial food chain & not wanting them to have standing so we can get this done more quickly, even if only for California?

  • 221. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:09 am

    And I am certain that the judges will take that into account when they are consideing their ruling.

  • 222. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:10 am

    OK — so by enforcing the injunction, they mean allowing marriage equality to go forward?

    The deputy clerk is affected by "the injunction" because she's going to have to start issuing marriage licenses to people she doesn't want to issue licenses to? Sounds like maybe she needs to get a job working for NOM.

  • 223. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:11 am

    phew, just in time.

  • 224. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Interesting…. I am glad they are doing the live feed.

    Just an observation – whom cares about the clerks. Paperwork can be changed at any time.

    When you are taking about protection and rights for families – how can one honestly talk about the paperwork?

    /boggle

  • 225. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I want them to have standing because it will push the case along. If they don't have standing, it just stops, and people outside CA are left stranded.

  • 226. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Yeah. And I want BOTH, unfortunately

  • 227. Richard Cortijo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:12 am

    This is just amazing…have to say!

  • 228. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:13 am

    WE here may hope that they have standing, as it gives the case wider scope. Olsen and Boies do not want them to have standing, as it wins the case for them and Perry et al.

    Of course (I just typed that "of curse" which may also be true) no matter what the ruling here is, there will be further appeals, I am sure. And now that the judges are educating Cooper as to how he should be arguing this standing issue, he may do it better next time.

  • 229. Trish  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:13 am

    I still think the panel is leaning toward ruling against standing for the County of Imperial. However, they appear to be leaning toward ruling in favor of standing for proponents of the initiative, based in large part on Strauss.

  • 230. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:15 am

    "I don't have a case for allowing proponents' Article III standing" – C. Cooper

  • 231. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Not entirely stranded. This case was so well done that it certainly can be used as a model for others to follow.

  • 232. elist  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Wasn't Lockyer the case about the 2004 "Winter of Love" marriages performed by the City & County of San Francisco under the direction of Mayor Newsom? Lockyer was the Attorney General at the time. In that case the marriages were ruled invalid because Mayor Newsom and the City and County did not have the authority to grant the licenses.

  • 233. Brittany-Ann  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Cooper finished by appealing that it was the will of the people. BULL. It was the will of people who have nothing to do with gay marriage. Ignored the whole voting on rights is wrong, thing.

    C-Span is replaying this from the beginning. I hope they stop once the break is over. I don't want to watch this over again. I have to go to work in two hours.

  • 234. adambink  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:17 am

    While we're on recess, just thought I'd stop by to say hey everyone, hope you're liking our coverage. I'll be icing the sore typing fingers later :)

  • 235. Chris From CO  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Im checking in. Im very impressed with p8tt. Your live feeding is awesome. Thx.

  • 236. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:19 am

    the little bar says it will resume soon

  • 237. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Surprised we don't have a new thread.

  • 238. adambink  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Hi and welcome and thanks!

  • 239. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:19 am

    I do think it was a lame attempt, and I felt the Judges thought it was as well, "Where IS Dolores….?!" Loved that.

  • 240. paula  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:20 am

    huh… i'm kind bummed so far. this is the first time i've seen the case in action, and i was expecting more from mr. boies. instead, he seemed to fumble a lot, and seemed to have trouble deviating from the path he thought the presentation would take.

    i hope the second half goes better!

  • 241. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Thank you so much to everyone working so hard to keep us all up to date on this trial!

  • 242. adambink  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I generally like to keep things in one place for events like this. Comment thread isn't too long.

  • 243. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Is it just how I am watching and hearing this, or has Cooper shot his "case" in both feet and gone on to work his way up the corpse from there?

  • 244. Up&Adam  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I'm absolutely enthralled, when Boies has to momentarily look up at the ceiling & stop to think about the answer to those judges questions I almost have a heart attack before David's response calms the heart beat down again. Even when there's laughter in the courtroom I can barely breathe.

  • 245. Andy Kelley  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Watching C-SPAN replaying Cooper's opening arguments while waiting for them to return to live coverage now… His arguments are even less convincing the second time around.

  • 246. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I love the judges question…could the people reinstitute segregation in schools by bringing it to a vote of the people…

  • 247. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Gotcha on the school desegregation question….

  • 248. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Getting Ole Coop right out of the gate!

  • 249. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Here comes Cooper with the "Procreation" again?

  • 250. fiona64  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Great. Now I need to bleach my brain.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 251. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Coop drinks a lot of water when he's fumbling.

  • 252. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:25 am

    And another indefinite delay. *headthump*

  • 253. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    The human race cannot and will not stop populating if the gayz get married. end of story.

  • 254. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Cooper lost his train of thought.

  • 255. Melissa  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Love how Cooper starts out with the same tired arguments about the ancient culture of marriage, and how he immediately gets nailed by the justices.

  • 256. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Your Honor, the central point we want to advance is this: We don't like the gays.

  • 257. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Or kicking it back to the state court, to clarify the rules on standing. Which would take years to get through. Oy.

  • 258. fiona64  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Did they actually say that on their blog? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 259. JonT  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Damn, Cooper is *really* hard to listen too.

    Uh uh… hmm uhh uh uh. jeez dude.

  • 260. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Which one is the one with the black horn rim square shaped glasses and the round face? Is that Smith or Hawkins?

  • 261. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    blah blah blah…continue the human race..umm…it is not my responsibility to procreate (do a shot)….although if I wanted to have children…how I go about doing that is none of anybody else's business…(i.e. through surrogacy)…..the point I am trying to get at, Cooper, is that ……..I am not going to have sex with someone of the opposite sex…EVER!!!!!……<3….Ronnie

  • 262. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Sounds to me like Coop just contradicted Ken Starr (In Re: Marriage Cases): Starr told CASC yes, the people could conceivably vote away any right they want — while Coop says no, the people could not vote to reinstate segregation. Somebody is wrong. *snort*

  • 263. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I'm not seeing any live blogging being done here…only chat between those P8TT members watching the live feeds.
    Am I missing something?
    I can't watch live at work so am counting on the live blogging….can someone direct me to where that is being written?

  • 264. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I just hope he's lost the argument ;-)

  • 265. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    The judges are playing hardball, which is their job. At least Cooper is also fumbling hard. They knew they would get a grilling. Boies is clearly better prepared, at least IMHO.

  • 266. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    So is Cooper!

  • 267. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Scroll up to the top of this page. (Also NCLR is tweeting and Firedoglake has liveblogging too.)

  • 268. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Cooper just argued that one-man, one-woman marriage is the way marriage has always been, everywhere? Has he never read the Bible? Or any history book?

  • 269. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Cooper's on procreation.

    Glad I didn't eat anything this morning. It's easier to vomit on an empty stomach.

  • 270. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    "When a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, society becomes very interested in that."

    Is that as inane and creepy a statement as it sounds? I sure think so.

  • 271. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Top of the page

  • 272. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Uh… Cooper is using Loving v. Virginia as proof that the people cannot vote for something unconstitutional and have it stand up in court?

    So he switched sides during the break and is on our side now????

  • 273. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce! Go Judge R!

  • 274. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Oh dear lord – AGAIN with the procreation thing?

    He was just arguing that platonic relationships & sexual relationships are treated differently … but a platonic male/female friendship is allowed legally to be made a marriage.

    Sounds like a great basis for banning divorce … ha!

  • 275. Greg  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    I applauded.

  • 276. Chris From CO  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Rational argument for divorce I Love it.lol

  • 277. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    yes, very creepy! ewww

  • 278. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    … and the case… :)

  • 279. Joel  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    What the f**k is Cooper rambling about? Wasn't there no evidence produced at the actual trial?

  • 280. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:31 am

    That was great. I cheered

  • 281. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:32 am

    LOLgot to love that

  • 282. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Lovin' that Judge Smith! We're left with "a word: marriage."

  • 283. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:32 am

    The name is NOT the institution, you dolt!!!

  • 284. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Just heard that too. :) I love being able to watch this live! Unable to do that with the other Prop 8 hearings…

  • 285. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:32 am

    There wasn't, which is a big part of his problem. He can't argue things not brought up at trial.

  • 286. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    They didn't need no stinkin' evidence, don'cha know?

  • 287. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Guess he learned something useful at BYU after all! Whodda thunk it????

  • 288. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Oh…thanks…was looking for it here in tyhe comments.
    Been a long time since the original trial, so guess I forgot how this works :-)

  • 289. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    If you just take away the one right, that's OK? Go Judge S!

  • 290. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    "If you take away a bunch of rights, that's bad, but if you take away one right, that's ok?"

  • 291. Sarah  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    For anyone using the chat, if the username you try doesn't work- try another! Mib is being silly.

    Also, a great resource if you can't see the live feed! :D Come join us!

  • 292. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    …"took away a right"

  • 293. Michael Adrian  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    I hate when they say "when you redefine the word marriage, you redefine the institution." but legally speaking in California, Prop 8 redefined marriage to be solely between a man or a woman. They say "you can't do it, but we can." Horrible.

  • 294. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Wow! Cooper is stuttering SO much!

  • 295. gayathomemom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    I know it sounds childish, but Cooper is getting pwned!!! :)

  • 296. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    His arguments should be released on audio CD and marketed as a cure for insomnia.

  • 297. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Yet Cooper doesn't want to admit that Prop 8 "took away" a right.

  • 298. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Sounds like this guy is trying the prop all over again. We went over that!

  • 299. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    I want to reach through cyberspace and slap Cooper. >.<

  • 300. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Especially Ken Starr, or other hypocritical politicians who parley sex-negative sentiments into votes.

  • 301. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:36 am

    I know, I can't stand the stuttering.

  • 302. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:36 am

    I'd be right behind you.

  • 303. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:36 am

    And he is, in my honest gay opinion, ever more handsome than Bob Newhart.

  • 304. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I'll do a slap around from the other side so you can do it again!

  • 305. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I'm trying not to be like the dude who shot his TV when Bristol Palin was on. Thank goodness I don't own a gun, but I do want to throw something…..

  • 306. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

    … so public discrimination is ok if it's just in one area?

    I don't think so, Mr Cooper.

  • 307. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Cooper seems like a stuttering fool.

    Judge: Why?

    Cooper: >stammerscrosses his eyes<

    He should be a poster child for contraceptives!

  • 308. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

    *snort*

  • 309. gayathomemom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Lather, rinse, repeat, Cooper…. Just keep repeating your same tired arguments….

  • 310. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Well, except the panel has basically taken Cooper's own hand and is hitting him with it.."why are you hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself"

  • 311. Melissa  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    That was great!! I've really thought his questions have been great so far.

  • 312. Loren Lemos  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    I love that he's using the term "Supremes".

    Makes me think of a girl group of justices with tight-fitting robes and white wigs in up-dos standing behind the bench telling the Prop 8 proponents to "Stop! In the name of love".

  • 313. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Ouch…harsh.

  • 314. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    How about balled-up pieces of paper?

  • 315. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Poster child – yes!

  • 316. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:40 am

    *giggle*

  • 317. Michael Adrian  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:40 am

    I'm listening to this at work, not watching the video, and Cooper's voice sounds like Pat Robertson's. *shudder*

  • 318. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Refresher: Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

  • 319. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Oh christ, he just said "14th amendment". Watch out!

  • 320. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Or maybe she will be live streaming it in class. What is your class then?

  • 321. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I personally love it. :) Shows the weakness of his case.

  • 322. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Uh…uh…um…..essentially…..uh…uh…

  • 323. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Hawkins: "pulling rabbits out of a hat"

    ha ha ha

  • 324. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Just do what I do whenever McCain's face is on TV: flip the bird at the screen until the camera switches away. Go for the double bird once you've had your coffee.

  • 325. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    No, no, let him talk. He's doing a great job showing how Prop 8 is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

  • 326. Ben  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    That thought nearly made me laugh aloud. I'm afraid that the other people in the café would think I'm strange.

  • 327. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I wonder how Cooper feels having to be grilled by Reinhardt (sp) after trying to get him to recuse himself. Neener neener.

  • 328. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Does this atty know what he's going to say? It sounds like he's making it up as he goes along.

  • 329. Michael Bindner  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Somebody tell Boies that marriage is the tool by which individuals may create new families and divorce the family of origin. Calling it "domestic partnership" is separate but equal, but its not equal.

  • 330. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Why would Reinhardt recuse himself?

  • 331. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Damn, I'd forgotten about that.

  • 332. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    The only ones that have freedom of speech on the "Protect Marriage" page are those who agree wholeheartedly with what "Protect Marriage" tells them they will agree with.

  • 333. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    If says much more than he's saying, it becomes clear that this proposition was based on discrimination. He's dancing around his words so he can avoid the obvious.

  • 334. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    a = b
    b = c
    c = a
    QED

  • 335. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Seems to me that Cooper is making the case for US, given the questions the judges are asking him. Maybe the proponents should get a refund.

  • 336. Ben  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Historic tradition doesn't hold water. If we followed historic tradition, a fair portion of the country still wouldn't be considered citizens, much less human, and half of the people who were considered citizens would be denied the vote because they were so “fragile”.

  • 337. Stacey Taylor-Kane  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    "Cooper replies that same-sex couples cannot procreate w/o a 3rd party and that’s the rational basis."

    Oh, I HATE that argument so much!

    1. I know plenty of opposite-sex couples who "cannot procreate without a third party."

    2. I'm a woman married to a man. Our marriage is without children. And, we plan on keeping it that way. Does this mean ours is not a true marriage? I don't remember anything on our marriage license stating that I had to give birth at some point to validate our relationship.

  • 338. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    According to the Prop 8 folks because his wife works for SoCal ACLU

  • 339. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Is Cooper really arguing "Prop 8 is constitutional because the US Supreme Court has not said it is not"?

  • 340. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:46 am

    "If you're taking away a right without a reason…."

  • 341. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I'm actually beginning to love that argument. It makes them all look especially stupid.

  • 342. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:47 am

    So – we can't discriminate against people based on race even if it's "the people's will" because the federal government says we can't, but we CAN discriminate based on sexual orientation because the federal government hasn't yet said we can't? UGH.

    I'm really digging Judge Reinhardt.

  • 343. Michael Bindner  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:47 am

    As a true believer, Cooper is a lousy advocate. Good for the good guys.

  • 344. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I wonder what the likelyhood is of any 3-0 decision against Cooper et al. That would be interesting.

  • 345. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    We don't need to stinkin' reason!

  • 346. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Also, he has a lisp.

    /sarcasm

  • 347. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I think I LOVE Judge Smith.

    "What is the rational basis for just excluding the word marriage?"

    LOVE him!!!

    Anybody else thinking at this point that if they rule for standing for the Proponents we are going to win this three to zero?

    And if they rule for standing for the Proponents I hope that Smith writes the ruling.

  • 348. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    "We don't need a reason."
    "I don't have a case."
    "We don't need evidence."

    I thought this guy was supposed to be a GOOD lawyer!

  • 349. Trish  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Basically, the judge's questions seem to be asking Cooper to make a distinction he's unwilling to make.

    The judges' questions imply that there is a difference between (a) establishing an institution that allows in only opposite sex couples and (b) taking away a title from same-sex couples who otherwise enjoy all of the other rights of the institution. The latter seems, in the implication of the judges' questions, to be more of a constitutional question.

  • 350. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:49 am

    He's been such a surprise…and a welcome one.

  • 351. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:49 am

    narrow, but yes

  • 352. Wolfinlv  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:50 am

    I think Charles Cooper has studied this and is able to sing it perfectly.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

  • 353. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Nobody did ANYTHING to invalidate so-called traditional marriage!!! My marriage to my husband is just as valid now as it was when same-sex marriage was legal, and will be just as valid when marriage equality returns.

    They act as if allowing same-sex couples to marry will deprive opposite-sex couples of their right to marry.

    That whistling sound you may be hearing is steam coming out of my ears.

  • 354. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:50 am

    And Cooper's totally talking around their questions.

  • 355. elist  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:51 am

    What is the Crawford case?

  • 356. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Maybe "good" only means "expensive."

  • 357. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:52 am

    I think that's what he's hanging onto.

  • 358. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:52 am

    What the hell is Cooper saying that the California Supreme Court decision "invalidated traditional marriages"

    That NEVER happened.

    No previously married "traditional" couple became not married. That's crazy talk.

    Prop 8 had ZERO EFFECT on straight people getting "traditional" marriages. It has nothing to do with them. Nothing.

  • 359. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:52 am

    I'm ready to start a 9th Court Judges Fan Club.

  • 360. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:53 am

    BWAH!!!

  • 361. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:53 am

    The judges are going to need boots if they have to wallow in this much bullshit.

  • 362. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Sometimes, you DON'T get what you pay for. :>

  • 363. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Nightshayde — let me know how to PayPal some $ to you to help out with your silk flower project. I want to be part of it.

  • 364. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Cooper has made no ground in arguing this.

  • 365. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:54 am

    I'm in.

  • 366. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Sign me up.

  • 367. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:55 am

    So HE wants to take it to SCOTUS and have them rule it unconstitutional too? Excellent!

    I would restate my claim that Cooper switched sides during the recess, but NOM would just say that Cooper should recuse himself and we need to do this all again. Or some such nonsense.

  • 368. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:55 am

    California does NOT have civil unions. We have domestic partnerships. Different. How much are these guys getting paid? How can they not know this, CA laws are germane to their case??

  • 369. Jaime  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:55 am

    This lawyer really does not have any strong arguments. Why? Oh ya because there are none.

  • 370. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I think when it's Boies's turn, he should just turn to Cooper and say, "Thanks, Chuck. We rest our case."

  • 371. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:56 am

    I'm just waiting for Cooper to slip & say that GLBTs deserve marriage just as much as anyone else.

  • 372. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Bahahahahahaha!

  • 373. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:56 am

    this is worse that a B movie!

    Cooper is really bad. What a boob.

    (no offense to those whom have boobs!)

  • 374. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:57 am

    I'm with you, Mouse. And so is my wife. They have suffered no particular, specific injury.

  • 375. bJason  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:57 am

    traditional marriage is uniquely unique

  • 376. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:57 am

    No offense taken. This guy doesn't seem prepared and like he can't follow the judges' questions. Maybe that's his plan.

  • 377. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:57 am

    No where does it say that you must have babies to be / get married … not a pre-requisit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 378. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    blah blah blah procreation blah blah blah

    Oooh – add "natural procreative abilities."

    So no straight couple who can't procreate on their own should be married?

    ENOUGH ABOUT THE FREAKIN' BREEDING, ALREADY!!!

  • 379. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Wait til they rule, kids. I think there's a strong possibility they'll kick standing back to the State and prolong this, and I don't think my heart can take it.

  • 380. Randy  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    This is the most civil gay bashing I've ever had!

  • 381. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    The trad. marriage argument is hogwash.

  • 382. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Prop 8 in the 9th. Law the way it is supposed to work!

  • 383. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Once again, Adam, THANK YOU for all your hard work! Hope we can get you to live blog the class action case in NC once everything is set to go!

  • 384. drjams  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Hmmm…I wonder – could Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown decide to take up the case as defendents then totally give the worst defense EVER (essentially throwing it)? Or would that just allow another appeal by these same a-holes?

  • 385. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    My time is well past — lemme run away!!!

  • 386. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:59 am

    CA has already ruled on standing, haven't they? So the only direction the standing could go is UP.

  • 387. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I hate it too, for your reason #2 — my deliberately child-free wife and I always feel so negated by this argument. (But if that's what the Prop H8ers are going with, then that's what our side has to shoot down.) OTOH, the more the H8ers argue procreation, the more ridiculous they sound.

  • 388. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Yes! He just caught himself … not required to have babies!

  • 389. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:00 am

    If it's clear in Cooper's mind, he's not making it so to the rest of us.

  • 390. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    There is no NEED for them to throw the case. Cooper seems to be doing that for them.

  • 391. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I'll tell him what Orwellian is – his stupid "argument".

  • 392. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    YAY!!! Hi Ted Olsen!!

  • 393. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Coop dares bring up Orwell when he just finished saying the govt has an interest in any relationship the moment it becomes sexual?!

  • 394. Dave in ME  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Mr. Cooper is confusing me…

    Dave in Maine

  • 395. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Because he's confused.

  • 396. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Yay! Our side speaking now! I wonder if it'll be the good same ol', same ol', or whether it'll be new stuff.

  • 397. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Yay Olsen!!!!

  • 398. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Cockroaches procreate very efficiently.

  • 399. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    But it sounded like if they COULD make sure everyone who gets married would have babies they WOULD. It's just inconvenient. Weird argument.

  • 400. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Olson up to bat now…..SWAT IT OUT OF THE PARK, TED!!!

  • 401. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Hey lawyers – watch and learn! (That includes those on the wrong side of the arg. in that court.)

  • 402. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    So calm and rational. So professional. What a change.

  • 403. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    =)

    I'll have to get back to you on that. I know the longer this process goes, the more time I'll have to make bouquets.

    Aside from wanting to share the joy of the couples who will eventually be able to get married, I want to show those whose families have rejected them that there are complete strangers (and straight ones, at that) who completely believe that their relationships are just as valid and important as anyone else's.

    If I decide to expand the project & set up a PayPal account, I'll certainly post the information here.

  • 404. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Nailed it!!!

    Soon a marriage license will come with a mandatory floating monitor to be placed in your bedroom, so the State Secretary of Gettin' It On can keep his eye on you and encourage you to do some baby-makin', while humming tasteful porn music.

  • 405. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Well, that would be Huxley anyway.

  • 406. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Giddy like a school girl here, waiting to hear what Olson has to say.

    Boies got to hold them down, now Olson gets to spank them!

  • 407. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:05 am

    One quick question – if raising babies is in the best interest of society and unwanted babies are NOT in the interest of society, then how are people penalized by society for these unwanted babies? Why are we paying people to keep their legs up?

    (heaven knows it is fun to have legs up – but good golly – they have to come down sometime….)

  • 408. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:05 am

    oooooooooohhhhh — Olson is GOOD. Very clear and focused.

  • 409. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:06 am

    and he as a big spanking paddle!

  • 410. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I thought the judges derailed Cooper's broken down train of thought. I have seen ancient Buicks without regular maintenance that are in better shape than Cooper's train of thought.

  • 411. Steven  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:07 am

    I LOVE TED OLSON……………………. GO TED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 412. DazedWheels  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:07 am

    "… it's not gay marriage; it's marriage." Yippee!

  • 413. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:07 am

    "I would not call it gay marriage." Yes! It is just Marriage. For everyone!

  • 414. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Good God man!

  • 415. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Yes, what a relief!

  • 416. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:09 am

    I love that comment from the last go round, but he'd best not use toward these judges ;-)

  • 417. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Don't call it "gay marriage" or "single sex marriage" it's just "marriage."

    Thank you, Ted Olson. Thank you.

  • 418. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:10 am

    and it's not inter-racial marriage, it's marriage!

  • 419. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Cooper says if this case is to be decided be “heightened scrutiny”, then it is a harder case to make.

    Really? How sad for you. Oh, wait. Your JOB is to be able to make the case regardless of how hard it is, isn't it? Not to say "I can't do THAT, your honor, so I don't think it is fair to ask me to!"

  • 420. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Olson is sooooooo incredible…he must have a superhero suit on under that business attire!

    Lesbians Love Olson too!

  • 421. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Oh god. He's going for it. I hope it sticks.

  • 422. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    "It's a harder case to make."

    And I'm not gonna make it.

  • 423. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Brilliant! Hey, does anybody else think Olson is reading up around here? Cause if so, HI TED!!!!! And THANK YOU!!!!!

  • 424. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    How can NOM possibly spin this to their advantage????

  • 425. drjams  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    You are right. I cannot imagine how anyone could throw it any better than they've done so far!

  • 426. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Olson is on fire. Each and every case mentioned today in court addressed. Arguing the cons. right far and above the Calif. constitution.

    And the way he says it! No stammering, no halting – just straightforward and adamant.

  • 427. Greg  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Watching this really drives home how thrilling it would've been to see the Boies/Olson performance in January. It's such a shame that was denied to us.

  • 428. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:13 am

    I was trying to do some work (or at least look like I was doing some work) while listening — but it's just not working.

  • 429. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:13 am

    So true.

  • 430. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Look at the judges. They are f&%$ing speechless! Go Ted!

  • 431. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    I'm in love. I hope he's really a lesbian!

  • 432. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Notice, the judges are sitting back and listening to him for the most part. Not interrupting or asking questions, but listening. That's gotta be a good sign.

  • 433. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    And "That Is NONSENSE." Snap! Go Teddy!

  • 434. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today for the union of this man and this woman.

    With the exchange of these genital cameras, we ensure that this couple with have sex with each other, and only with each other, for the purposes of procreation and the entertainment of those willing to pay $2.99 for the first minute and $1.98 for each additional minute.

  • 435. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    This man is simply incredible… I hope I can shake his hand one day or give him a big hug.

    I have tears in my eyes from the passion he has for our case. He is detailed, focused, and intense.

    I love this man. God bless him!

  • 436. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Quoting page numbers of the opposition's brief!

  • 437. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Haha! "Banning…conversations with other children" !!!! :) Lovely.

  • 438. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    He has the answer for each point – for each question they ask…spot on!

  • 439. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Agreed, but at least we got this, and people like Adam got to keep us updated in real time–didn't used to be able to do that. THANK YOU ADAM for your flying fingers.

  • 440. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    "detailed, focused, and intense."

    That is what I love the most. And passion, oh the passion.

  • 441. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    True! yes…. I hope it is a good sign too!

  • 442. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Now I hope they give standing and rule on the merits!!!! Yay, Ted!!!!!!!!

  • 443. Jodi Nathan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Theodore Olson is my hero!!!! He's so articulate!!!

  • 444. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

    If I wasn't married to a wonderful spouse, Olsen just might be able to make me gay. But I spot a ring on his hand. ;)

  • 445. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:16 am

    As Elle Woods would say "Snaps for Ted"

  • 446. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Thank you! Same-sex marriage is not going to keep heterosexuals from getting married.

    Duh!!!

  • 447. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Love it! That would be awesome. Then when he's being interviewed outside, riiiiiiip!

  • 448. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Not going to keeps hets from marriage, divorce, having children!

  • 449. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:18 am

    HA!

    Cooper: "I don't know…."

    I forgot about that…

  • 450. Arthur Henke  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:18 am

    You can't mess with Olson! Out of all the lawyers that have gone before the judges this morning he's the only one that they haven't made look like a fool. He's on it, concise, and persuasive.

  • 451. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I can't believe how articulate he is…wow.

  • 452. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:20 am

    He's right there, as if on the tips of his toes, he knows his facts, every argument, every angle – so fantastic.

  • 453. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:21 am

    And how about the way he insults all single parents by saying that the children always have poor outcomes? Excuse me, but I know many adults who grew up as children of single parents who actually grew into adulthood with BETTER outcomes than children who grew up with both biological parents in the house. In fact, I know many who are overachievers simply because they did not want to be a statistic.

  • 454. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Who is this judge?

  • 455. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:22 am

    How many times have Coop's own words been used against him? Love it!

  • 456. Greg  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Boies might not have been as forceful as Olson in his arguments, but he certainly wasn't made to look like a fool!

  • 457. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:22 am

    "the name is the institution" way to use their own words agains them

  • 458. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:23 am

    No, because the basis for granting standing to proponents of initiatives and certain defendant-intervenors hasn't been directly ruled on and articulated by a court. They're relying a lot on Ginsburg's dicta in Arizonans, but there's no direct ruling on that issue.

  • 459. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:23 am

    When asked what's the diff btw marriage & DP's or CU's, why doesn't our side ever bring up the issue of portability?

    Not that I'm not loving Olson — I am. And I'm loving him throwing back Coop's asinine argument that the word IS the institution.

  • 460. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Olson is at his best today.

  • 461. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Good man! How incredible of a lawyer is he! I hope his wife is proud! I love how he's taking the opposition's arguments and turning them around for use by our side. And no stuttering! It's just facts, facts, and more facts. Wonderful. And now I'm just rambling, but, goodness, he's amazing. Go Olson!

    PS: how much longer should this hearing go on for?

  • 462. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Yes, but we also have to remember that when you are dealt a lousy hand, the usual ploy in poker is to bluff and hope nobody calls your bluff. Unfortunately for Cooper et al., their bluff has been called not only by Judge Walker, but also by Judges Reinhart, Hawkins, and Smith.

  • 463. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Olson, you are moving me to tears. I cannot thank you enough for your efforts in this case. You are amazing.

  • 464. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I think right now, portability isn't an issue as long as DOMA is in effect. Other states aren't bound to recognize marriages, DPs, or CUs from other states.

    I don't know how portability works in international travel, though.

  • 465. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Dunno, but at least one is smiling now!

  • 466. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:26 am

    That would get into DOMA, which Boise/Olson have avoided.

  • 467. Jenny  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    I never want Oslon to stop talking. :) He's on quite a roll and getting it all spot on! **love**

  • 468. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Oops…he just made mention of it.

  • 469. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Exactly!

  • 470. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    His wife probably has trouble winning arguments at home…

  • 471. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    And they're letting him speak…they're listening…. This is just wonderful (although we've got Cooper coming back for 2 minutes).

  • 472. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Was supposed to be an hour for each section. Clearly, they're going over, but that seems good for Olsen.

  • 473. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Everything you need to know about an institution is right there in the title, just like the World Series :P

  • 474. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:28 am

    His wife died on 9/11/2001 – the plane that went into the pentagon.

  • 475. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:29 am

    OMG He is getting into heavy territory.

  • 476. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:29 am

    "There is a possibility in this case that Prop 8 is unconstitutional….are we free to go beyond that?" (!)

  • 477. Chris B  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Loving: " if you had s-s marriages, it doesn’t change where the children will be raised." The opponents claim 'procreation' and ' father/mother/kids', but the fact is that CA allows gays to adopt and with or without SS marriage, these kids will be raised by gay couples. Logically, if there were a concern about what is best for kids, they would ban gay adoption and remove children from single-parent families. Banning gay marriage will not change the fact that gays raise children and will continue to do so.

  • 478. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:30 am

    How much of Cooper's time will be used by "um… um … uh… um…?"

  • 479. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Good question from the middle judge.

    And then Olsen answers with respect and facts and passion.

  • 480. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Oh god. I'm researching that right now. If so, I'm so sorry. That remark I made… I'm deeply sorry–I didn't know.

  • 481. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:31 am

    It is like Olsen is having a conversation on how they are going to rule in this case….

    I am not getting the impression of judge / attorney like I did when Cooper was talking. Olsen seems like he is having a good conversation with the judges and answering their questions. There is a dialogue here….

  • 482. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Holy Dolores! They're considering a broad ruling!

  • 483. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Olsen is respected by these judges, it seems. It IS like a conversation.

  • 484. Jenny  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:32 am

    **Stands up and applauds!** Well done, Ted Olson!! :)

  • 485. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    ooooh! Who is this cutie, Ms Stewart?

  • 486. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Here's Therese…she's usually awesome, fingers crossed!! Go Therese!

  • 487. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Aw. Olson is gone now. But hopefully this new lady will be an articulate lawyer.

  • 488. Carpool Cookie  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Okay….Therese Stewart, Esq. is speaking. Thank god we have a woman in the mix again…everyone's still white, though.

  • 489. Justin  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Damn, Ted Olson's arguments were absolutely flawless. I'm surprised he didn't get a standing ovation after he was done, ha.

  • 490. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:33 am

    I am don't know..but if they were, would that then affect Arizona?

  • 491. gayathomemom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Well, there it is, huh? I cannot wait to see how far these judges will go in their ruling. Do you really think they will go as far as the federal level?

  • 492. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Adam quoted Olsen: "“California has taken a class of citizens and put them in a separate category; that act of discrimination and there is no doubt that it is discrimination and there is no doubt that it does great harm, can it be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis and I argue it cannot be justified at the lowest standard of constitutional analysis.”

    Fantastic.

  • 493. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Representing City/County of San Francisco, a co-plaintiff in the case. She was awesome in the hearing for Marriage Cases. And she is cute, isn't she?

  • 494. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:35 am

    He did from us! The pause after he finished just called for it.

  • 495. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:35 am

    They asked Olson "could we?" Why would they ask if they weren't considering? And, yeah, Arizona

  • 496. Carpool Cookie  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:35 am

    His physical posture is much more relaxed, as well.

    Mr. Cooper looked like he was dying to go to the bathroom.

  • 497. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    She is eloquent, I think, but her voice is a little irritating. But that may be my computer volume too high. That's probably it.

  • 498. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    She is incredible … and not afraid of the judges. You can hear and see her convictions. Love her!

  • 499. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Definitely! But, alas, too young for me……

  • 500. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    She's good.

  • 501. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    They raised the question. Olson didn't. This is looking good.

  • 502. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:36 am

    LOL down Kate

    /attempts to hold Kate back

  • 503. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    True, but I'm thinking about other states that do recognize SSM (even NY does, tho' has no SSM of its own). For example, Washington state now has CU's that are for all practical purposes marriage without the word "marriage" — but would WA CU's be recognized anywhere outside WA state? Add the word "marriage," and — voila! — full recognition in other SSM states.

    (I think many (most?) other countries w/SSM recognize a U.S. SSM — but I haven't tested the theory myself.)

    I'm always reminded of the problems w/New Jersey's civil unions: They're marriage in all but name — but try to tell that to the SS couples denied spousal insurance (from out-of-state companies) for the simple lack of the word "spouse."

    I just never could figure why examples like these haven't been cited, even without bringing DoMA into it.

  • 504. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    She's wonderful.

  • 505. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    The more she talks, the more she makes me wish I was a lesbian. :>

  • 506. James Sweet  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    “You cannot separate the two” [referring to the name and the institution].

    Well, Plato would be proud I suppose….

    But is he arguing that in countries which speak a different language, the institution of marriage is changed — because they use a different word? Hmmm, interesting… Turns out the map is the territory!

  • 507. elist  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Wow, Terry Stewart is ROCKING the equal protection arguments today–maybe even better than Boies and Olson.

  • 508. Santa Barbara Mom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Olsen leaves me speechless. What an incredible man and attorney he is……….how blessed we are to have him.

  • 509. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

    How refreshing to know that we can listen to this and not expect to hear "bible" or "Leviticus" or "Adam & Steve" EVEN ONCE.

  • 510. gayathomemom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Who is the dork with the glasses and bad hair to Therese's right? Can he make more obvious facial expressions?

  • 511. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Who's the Bob Saget-esque guy we see in the background while Therese is speaking (just to her left)? He keeps making really exaggerated faces of confusion and disapproval.

    It's really distracting.

  • 512. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Frankly, before it got to this point, I was worried that they might not want to rule on constitutionality at ALL, and would drop the case like a hot potato based on standing.

    But doesn't this lead you to believe that they might WANT to rule and make it broad? How amazing would THAT be?

  • 513. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    You mean like Donna Summer's "Love to Love You, Baby"? If she wasn't diddling herself while she recorded that song, she was certainly putting on a good act!

  • 514. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    This lady is good…. They are listening to her as well.

    I do not sense the same issues with Cooper either.

    Hugs to this lady! Go Go Go! ;-)

  • 515. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Haha, you beat me to it.

  • 516. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Thanks, Andrew; I needed that………

  • 517. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    No – it's a little irritating. I think she needs to take a breath and calm down a tad. Obviously, she's passionate about what she's saying (which is awesome) — but the pitch of her voice was going up and up & getting a little shrill.

    She actually calmed down a little & got better.

  • 518. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    I don't know.

  • 519. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    WOW! She's good.

    And to think that the best woman the Republicans could find was Palin.

    I'd vote for Therese any day. For president.

  • 520. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    She is very cute. I like her eloquence too…and I'm a gay man lol

  • 521. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    what's that smell?

    oh…. Cooper is up…..

    *sigh*

  • 522. Azotame  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I wish i could like this comment. Haha!

  • 523. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    She starts out wonderfully and gets only better and better and better. Yay for us!

  • 524. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am

    If they can argue our cause, I don't care what race, gender, age, or anything else they are.

  • 525. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:41 am

    She didn't get interrupted much, either. Authoritatively done, Ms. Stewart!

  • 526. fiona64  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Remember:

    When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither one is on your side, pound the table.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 527. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Does that mean that I can stand on a map of Australia and BE in Australia?

  • 528. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Ok so since they can't do it in the court room i'm going to stand up at home and clap for Terry Stewart.

  • 529. fiona64  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I hope there's a pony in there somewhere. ;->

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 530. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    God, how many times do they have to remind Cooper about Romer and Lawrence??? HELLO, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE THE 1970S!!!

  • 531. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Cooper's voice has dropped and is less confident.

  • 532. elliom  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    LOL…me too. :>

  • 533. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    More "uh…uh…uh…"

  • 534. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Did cooper just say that procreation is the *ONLY* reason for his side? Oops.

  • 535. Carpool Cookie  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:43 am

    COOPER: "The Baker case would be on all fours with Loving if…"

    That sounds kind of sexual….?

  • 536. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Do you have a case Cooper…I don't need no stinkin' case…lol

  • 537. Simon  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I agree. That guy needs to be removed from the courtroom. How unprofessional. It's bad enough that he's making dirty looks but to be on television too is crazy. Just goes to show that their side is full of haters.

  • 538. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:43 am

    Well… it is a "mild" hold back…

    I always encourage relations like this.

    Go for it Kate! :-)

  • 539. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I know. He is annoying.
    Therese was great.

  • 540. James Tuttle  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:44 am

    A broad ruling would, at the same time, be the scariest and most exciting outcome. I don;t know how to feel about that line of questioning…I feel we have an EXCELLENT case with all three judges, but how far they take it I can;t even begin to speculate. *taps foot for Kathleen to get back*
    And what a lucky duck that she, and all the others, are there in the room!

  • 541. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:44 am

    You know straight couples use all kinds of "means" to reproduce or not reproduce. Surrogates, sperm donors, egg donors…. It's ridiculous for Cooper to keep hammering that straight marriage is the "right" way.

  • 542. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    LOL

    Glad you mentioned that… I thought I was the only one that thought that!

    /blush

  • 543. Erik  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    "When you are in the red does not mean you have that much time left…"

    "Nothing has been done quickly here…"

  • 544. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Cooper doesn't make sense.

  • 545. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Coo's gone waaaay over 2 min. He has spent at least 30 seconds in stammering.

  • 546. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    "Nothing has been done quickly in this case"

  • 547. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    I know! I had to look it up in a legal dictionary:

    on all fours adj. a reference to a lawsuit in which all the legal issues are identical (or so close as to make no difference) to another case, particularly an appeals decision which is a precedent in deciding the suit before the court. Thus, an attorney will argue that the prior case of Steele v. Merritt is "on all fours" with the case before the court, and so the court must reach the same conclusion. (See: precedent)

  • 548. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:45 am

    OK — when do we get answers on either standing or the merits?

  • 549. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:46 am

    I think we need to change his name from Cooper to Pooper.

    The only thing I am hearing from him is BS and that is pretty stinky!

  • 550. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:46 am

    *snerk*

    I lol'd. Good thing most of the people who sit in my area aren't here today.

  • 551. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Yes, C's 2 minutes took over 6 minutes.

  • 552. new  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Cooper = weak

  • 553. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Nope. I thought it, too.

  • 554. Sarah  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Just plugging the Live chat In case anyone wants to join us!

  • 555. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Thanks everyone. It was great being with you all here today!

  • 556. fiona64  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Cool! My much-wanted trip to France just got a lot cheaper. ;->

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 557. Tea Dough  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Do we know how long the decision process will take at its maximum?

  • 558. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Thanks to everyone – especially in the courtroom doing the transcribing.

  • 559. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Cooper really wants to argue that because they would have ruled against same sex marriage in 1967 we should rule against it today? Errr…. what? If Loving v. Virgnia had been about INTERRACIAL marriage in 1894 they would have ruled against THAT then.

    Zero points, Mr. Cooper.

  • 560. Andrew_SEA  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:49 am

    here here!!

  • 561. Sapphocrat  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Too bad nobody's brought up parthenogenesis. When we figure out how to reproduce without sperm and egg getting together, then what's your argument going to be, Mr. Cooper?

  • 562. Rhie  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Watching

  • 563. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Kathleen and Ann! Call home! We want your insights NOW.

  • 564. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Maximum? Many months to over a year, I would guess. They can drag it out forever before ruling. Hopefully it will be MUCH shorter than that.

  • 565. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Can we give a negative number? I'd say he scored -30 points.

  • 566. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Yes, same question here.

  • 567. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:53 am

    THANK YOU TO ALL THE COURTROOM ATTENDEES AND THEIR WONDERFUL INSIGHTS!!!

    And yes, I did mean to yell that. You guys are great and wonderful and terrific and we LOVE YOU ALL!!!

    If you can, please let Olsen, Boies and Stewart know that a lot of us out here love them too.

  • 568. Jane  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Lol, love it.

  • 569. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Indeed!

  • 570. Andy Kelley  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Yes! Please :)

  • 571. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 572. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Only -30? :)

  • 573. mcc  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Some fantastic arguing from Boies and Olson on the constitutionality of prop 8, but what I do not understand is why there is a discussion of merits happening here today at all. Isn't the point of the trial to determine constitutionality, and the point of today's hearing to determine standing, i.e., will there *be* a trial? Shouldn't the question of whether Prop 8 is in fact constitutional be basically irrelevant to whether imperial county / prop 8 proponents have standing?

    Do I misunderstand?

  • 574. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:55 am

    And his wife, Lady, has also been one of the behind the scenes players on our team. In an interview, he said he would have a rough time at home if he had not done his best for Perry et al. I can't remember where the article was, but I will try to find it and post a link to it shortly. Meanwhile, I need to go and have a celebratory half pot of coffee and just play the Hava Nagila and dance the hora around the house.

  • 575. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Be prepared for it to be a while. Rulings on both or just standing COULD come quickly, but probably won't… and certainly not quickly enough to satisfy us. It might be several months or more before we hear.

    Of course, we could all write to Santa and say all we want for Christmas is a ruling… and see if that works! :)

  • 576. Franck  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    I couldn't watch the hearing live, but reading it here was still an excellent experience. And, hey, my ISP might be bad at keeping consistent service, but boy did they choose an excellent time to let me go online.

    This goes to whoever gets to shake Olson, Boies or Stewart's hand – or even give them a big old hug: please feel free to do it a second time for my sake!

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1263 days, as of today.

  • 577. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Gregory and Hubby official love Ms. Stewart!!! Standing applause!

  • 578. Gary Agner  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    James Tuttle, were you on the USS Lang?

  • 579. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Um… my understanding (exceptionally prone to be incorrect) is that this is the two problems combined into one hearing–standing *and* constitutionality. That way, in case there *is* standing, the judges can rule whether or not the proposition is constitutional.

  • 580. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 6, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Standing O here too for Ms. Stewart!

  • 581. Elizabeth Oakes  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:00 am

    No, it's just that the process is counterintuitive. They hear both issues at the same time to avoid prolonging the calendar and having to schedule a separate hearing if standing is granted. I know, I know, it's weird….but I think the idea is to shorten the timeline.

  • 582. Franck  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Aaaand midnight hour has just rang, time for me to go to bet. Thank you Adam for reporting, and thank you everyone for participating!

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1263 days, as of today.

  • 583. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:03 am

    You do misunderstand a bit. There are two things that were being argued here today.

    The first was, do the Proponents (and/or Imperial County) have standing to even bring this appeal to the 9th Circuit. That was the point of the first hour.

    The second hour was the argument of the actual case.

    So, what can result from today is that the 9th will rule first on whether there is any standing, then on the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself.

    If they rule there is no standing, they will not rule on the case (because lack of standing means that effectively there was no one qualified by the court to voice an appeal of Walker's ruling). If they rule there is standing, they will rule also on the case.

    Either way, there will undoubtedly be more appeals, but the court appearances for the appeals to the 9th Circuit is now a done deal.

  • 584. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Not hardly. His wife is a well-respected attorney in her own right, and, according to Ted Olson himself, has been a very important behind the scenes player in this case.

  • 585. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Our president to name one… Obama was raised by his mother (and grandmother)

  • 586. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:11 am

    He has remarried, and he married a lawyer, who is well-respected in her own right, and he has stated that Lady is one of the vital behind the scenes workers in this case.

  • 587. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Same.

  • 588. anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Bingo!

  • 589. nightshayde  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:13 am

    But then the children created via parthenogenesis wouldn't be as "natural," therefore they wouldn't be as good.

    They'd be allowed to enter into domestic partnerships, but definitely NOT marriage.

  • 590. Don in Texas  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I agree completely. Wish our side would have pointed out that a FEDERAL JUDGE vetoed Prop 8, not Arnold or Brown.

  • 591. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:14 am

    (Well, I think you're pretty smart already.)

  • 592. Cindy  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:21 am

    So what will happen now? i am new to site-

  • 593. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Yes, and Cooper seemed to be pounding said table with his head!

  • 594. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Fascinating hearing!
    Judges showed us their impartiality by asking hard questions both sides.
    I liked how judges were grilling Cooper and Tyler as I was grilling my chicken earlier for dinner.
    I also liked the well-known to us already premise that marriage is for idiots who have babies by accident of being virile and horny, not for having a lifelong special loving relationship within which people decide to have children because they trust each other to be wonderful parents to those children and stick together in love.
    Looking forward to the decision!

    – ♂K♥F

  • 595. Don in Texas  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:27 am

    It has been reported that AFER plans to use this case as a platform to file suit against all such prohibitions nationwide.

  • 596. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:28 am

    During the standing phase, they judges were quite hesitant, but during the merit phase, I got more and more excited. I don't think I was reading into it. While Cooper struggled and they clearly were impatient, but they "led" Olson. They were ahead of him all the way. And when Reinhardt asks "how far can we go?" It's as if they'd already discussed that among themselves. Judge Walker has handed them–almost–a blank page to write a whole new treatise on equality for LGB&T people. And to see what Olson might do before SCOTUS if they actually do uphold Walker…. !

  • 597. VictorInLA  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Despite Boies's arguments, I don't think the justices are as committed to the idea that marriage is a fundamental right for gays (which would have consequences beyond CA) as they are to the simpler (and narrower) idea that the voters took away a right from a minority (which was granted to them by the CA Supreme Court) without having a rational basis. If the proponents get standing, I predict this will be the court's ruling.

    Re the standing issue, who knows? This IS the Wild West. If proponents get standing, it would be easier for anti-corporate forces to use this case as a precedent to vault into the federal arena various attacks on so the called "rights" corporations have received from their manipulations of California's dysfunctional state political system.

  • 598. Sven  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:29 am

    As I understand it the judges could defer the question of standing to the supreme court or they could decide themselves. If standing is found the judges would rule on the constitutionality of prop 8. From there an appeal is sure to happen either way the vote goes. No idea of the timetable yet.

  • 599. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Anonygrl, if you downloaded the stuff from the trial, their phone numbers and email addresses for their offices are listed there. If not, let me know and I will go in and send them to you. That is how I am planning to contact them and say thank you.

  • 600. JonT  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Yeah Kate – I thought she kicked ass too. Got all of her important points across.

  • 601. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:34 am

    This was the appeal trial, and they combined both the trial on Article III Standing and the trial about the merits of the constitutionality for the one date. If the Prop H9 side is found to have no Article III Standing, then the case ends with Judge Walker's ruling standing, but it will only be effective for California. If they are found to have Article III Standing, and the judges rule that Prop H8 is unconstitutional, then this could affect anything from the state of California to all of the states within the 9th Circuit.

  • 602. MJFargo  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I know, but they seemed quite welcoming. That in the absence of action by the AG and Gov, "the people" needed representation. They also seemed quite aware that SCOTUS shot them down on this before, so for me it's a coin flip. They also seemed eager to write on the merits.

  • 603. JonT  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Yeah… I had no idea what he was getting at with that.

  • 604. adambink  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Thirded.

  • 605. mcc  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Thanks everyone for the explanations.

  • 606. Don in Texas  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Not to put too fine a point on it — and with due respect — it is not the federal government which commands that no one should be discriminated against because his or her race.

    It is we, the people, who issued that command through the Constitution that we "ordained and established." And the federal government has not authority to disobey our command.

  • 607. Up&Adam  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:56 am

    from a law professor friend of mine when I asked the same question. His reply: "The standing issue and the merits issue are both done at the same time for what the Courts' describe as "judicial economy." Their reasoning goes like this: Let's say that the 9th Circuit says they have no standing and it gets appealed to the Supreme Court and 4 judges vote to hear the appeal. Then, if the Supreme Court decided that they did, in fact, have standing, it would have to go back to the appeals court to decide the merits. The case would bounce back and forth between the courts. In order to avoid this, they decide to do it all at once. That way, if they need it, they've got it, and if they don't need it, they have wasted a minimal amount of the Court's time."

  • 608. Kalbo  |  December 6, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Me, too! The sticky issue does seem to come down to standing, but on merit, we will win all the way!

    I loved that Olsen was careful to distinguish that this case can indeed be decided based on the 14th Amendment, ergo applying beyond California! As he explains, there's no good reason to limit this decision to just California; that argument is but a subset of the fact that these laws violate our fundamental rights. ^_^

  • 609. Kalbo  |  December 6, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Ha! I noticed that, too, and then was constantly distracted whenever he was in the frame.

  • 610. Ang in VA  |  December 6, 2010 at 8:07 am

    I think this is the article you are thinking of, Richard. Great piece. And proof that even the oldest dogs can learn a few new tricks under the right influence! :)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/fashion/19Lady….

  • 611. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 8:40 am

    THAT'S IT, Ang!!!! Thank you for finding it. I couldn't even remember which media outlet had run it! Is Ang short for Angel, by any chance? If not, it will be in my mind from now on!

  • 612. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Totally! Those dark skinned people can come learn at our schools as long as they drink from their own damn water fountains.

  • 613. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Fortunately for them, they aren't constrained by logic, reason, reality, or the truth. Makes their PR work so much easier.

  • 614. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:00 am

    A tautology is not proof or evidence; it's just a tautology – and their arguments are all tautological. I doubt any of the proponents even know the meaning of that word because their entire belief system is a tautology.

    Having read this post, I feel really positive about this case now. I think we're going to win, and I don't think the proponents have a snowball's chance in hell. *crosses fingers*

  • 615. Mouse  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:03 am

    A big THANKS to Lady Olson, as well, for her part in this case. I can't express how much this means to all of us, but I have the feeling you already know.

  • 616. Kathleen  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Hi everyone. Ann and I just got back from the city. That's the most fabulous and wonderful DaveP with us in that photo.

    Besides Dave, Ann and I also met up with Sheryl, Alan and his husband.

    Ann and I made it into the actual courtroom! Have some pictures of Rick J, Arisha, and many others. Will post later when I'm not so exhausted. It was a great day for equality!

  • 617. Kathleen  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Yes. Smith was to Reinhardt's left

  • 618. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

    My husband and I are another of the 18K Club. I'm looking forward to a court ruling that will allow this club many additional members.

  • 619. Michael Ejercito  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Reinhardt asks, are the clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles counties bound by injunction? Boies says no.

    Did he even read the fucking ruling

    prohibiting the
    official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8

    The clerks of Los Angeles and Alameda County were official defendants. They are similarly situated to the county clerk appellant in Zablocki v. Redhail and the county clerk defendant in Bishop v. Oklahoma .

  • 620. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

    I should think those are all synonymous terms, at least on a practical level.

  • 621. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Of COURSE you and Ann made it into the court room, silly!

  • 622. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Go away Century 21….. XP ……Ronnie

  • 623. Kate  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:42 am

    My, my, Michael — you've actually lost your well-honed cool. I've never seen you frantic enough to type "fucking." Having some worries about the day's events, eh??

  • 624. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:44 am

    This is hardly surprising. Bigots lie with other bigots (and I mean that word "lie" in many senses). It's not surprising that IN ADDITION to wanting Prop 8 upheld, they want SCOTUS to reverse the decision about Arizona. Scratch a homophobe, find a racist (or a sexist).

  • 625. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Unfortunately, freedom of speech also encompasses the right to plug one's ears and sing "La la la" when confronted with things one doesn't like acknowledging.

  • 626. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I wouldn't be surprised if she's already on NOM's payroll and is a shill for them.

  • 627. Adam G  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:55 am

    The people do not have the right to abrogate the rights of citizens. Period.

  • 628. Kathleen  |  December 6, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I love that, too, elliom

  • 629. Kathleen  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Hasn't filed a memo yet – at least it hasn't yet gone on the docket. P8TTers will be the first to know. :)

  • 630. Ann S.  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:07 am

    And a fabulous time we had, too.

  • 631. DaveP  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Hi everyone !

    Just got home from SF. It was an absolutely amazing day. First, the wonderful sense of community and celebration in front of the court house, then getting to meet Kathleen and Ann for the first time, and meeting Sherly and Alan & his husband again, then being able to shake the hand of David Boise and personally thank him as he made his way into the courth house….

    I had a numbered ticket that would have let me into the main court room with Kathleen and Ann but I decided to give it away and go into one of the overflow rooms with the other P8TTers because I just wasn't sure if I could stand to keep quiet throughout the procedings. I think I made the right choice for myself. How Kathleen and Ann managed to endure the excitement in silence I will never understand, but I am impressed.

    After it ended, we made our way downstairs to a press conference where we got to hear our side make some well-worded statements (which will no doubt end up on the news tonight on every TV channel in California – yay!). Then we all had lunch and more actual face-to-face conversation. OK, I gotta turn on the TV and see what' they are saying…..

  • 632. DaveP  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Oh yeah! I also got to meet Arisha!! Hi Arisha and thank you again!!

  • 633. Carol  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:30 am

    I don't think so, because the fed judges don't have jurisdiction over state officers. Later, one judge (Reinhardt?) got a big laugh saying lucky for Olson the election came out the way it did. Also, Boies and judges discussed how Cal S.Ct. summarily denied the petition to direct AG and Gov to defend.

  • 634. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  December 6, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Typical trolls.

  • 635. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Yeah Python!!

  • 636. StraightForEquality  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Yippee! I hope so.

  • 637. Anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:34 am

    I love you too… even HOURS later when I am reading over again to see what I missed!

  • 638. Anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:47 am

    First of all, welcome! Glad you could join us.

    What happens now is that we wait for what will seem like an eternity but may really only be a month or so, but might be considerably longer…. for the 9th Circuit court to rule on the case.

    They may rule that the Proponents and Imperial County have no standing to bring the issue before them, in which case they are done. They may rule that one or both DO have standing, then rule as to whether Prop 8 is unconstitutional or not.

    Either way they rule, we can expect more appeals to happen before we are through, and possibly a trip to the Supreme Court of the US, in which case there will be another day like today where everyone gets to speak their piece again.

    Eventually, there will be a final ruling, but that may not happen for some time (estimates range from months to some time in 2012).

    But all that aside, today went very well for us, we think. Yay!!!

  • 639. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:55 am

    [...] Courage Campaign is liveblogging. I’ll provide my thoughts and opinions later. Tags: California, Marriage, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Supreme Court of the United States For related information, see Aside LINK Comments [...]

  • 640. Elliott  |  December 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    OK, I know I'm late to the conversation, but as I watch the trial TiVo'd, did anyone else notice how poorly Cooper's tie was tied? The suspicious side of me thought that it must had been a Carol Burnett style nod to all those fashionably challenged men who couldn't style themselves out of a paper bag, IOW, the heterosexual scared white males who somehow are challenged by my gay marriage.

    Or am I just picking nits? :)

  • 641. Carol  |  December 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    I found this contact info:

    tolson@gibsondunn.com
    tel: 202-955-8668
    fax: 202-530-9575

    dboies@bsfilp.com
    tel: 914-749-8200
    fax: 914-749-8300

  • 642. jenn976  |  December 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    exactly. I’m thinking of timing it.

  • 643. Kerri  |  December 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    DANG! That’s all I gotta say … Olsen is so eloquent in his wording!! and so well versed.

  • 644. this n that | What's&hellip  |  December 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    [...] Update on the Californian Proposition 8 court proceedings: Same-Sex Initiative Reaches Next Hurdle. The hearing today has two issues to consider: the first is one of legal standing. Since the Californian government has opted not to defend Proposition 8, the defense has fallen to special interest groups who will need to prove at this hearing that their lives are directly and substantially affected by Judge Walker’s ruling. The second issue to consider is “the actual legality of Proposition 8. Opponents have argued — and Judge Walker agreed — that voters had no legitimate state interest in defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, and provided more than a dozen witnesses during testimony in January to back up their case. Supporters of the measure offered two witnesses.” Either way, this won’t be the end of the issue: the next step is either appealing to a larger array of 9th circuit judges or to the SCOTUS itself. So far the presentation on the part of the defense has pretty much been pathetic, par for the course so far. The tweets were pretty interesting: @AFER Judge Reinhardt: When you’re asked a question, and you don’t know the answer, say so. #Prop8, @CourageCampaign Imperial County attorney Robert Tyler being getting grilled hard on the standing issue. Seems flustered. #Prop8, etc. No word yet on when the ruling itself will be issued. (For a great analysis of what could come of this hearing, see this: Prop 8 Argument Day FAQ — h/t Joe.My.God.) Live chat, transcript, video & wrap up can be found here: 9th Circuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger hearing: live thread and chat. [...]

  • 645. And you can play along at&hellip  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    [...] can watch it on CSpan.org, or you can read a transcript here. This entry was posted in Current Events, GLBT. Bookmark the permalink. ← Entertainment [...]

  • 646. John  |  December 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    This straight guy noticed it too. :) Of course I'm the guy who knows many, many ways to fold a pocket square and gives fashion advice to his male friends ("PLEEEEAAAAASSSEEE don't buy another black suit unless you are going into the funeral industry!").

    My wife noticed that there was a little piece of hair that kept coming out in front of his ear from behind. We suspect that he had a hard time finding a good hair dresser. :)

    Watching the trial with my wife, I was reminded how precious marriage is, and how important my marriage is. Marriage for all will be a wonderful thing for people in straight marriages. Sometimes I need a reminder to not take all the things our marriage license represents for granted, and seeing the passion people have to share their love is a great reminder. I wish everyone here who desires it – gay or straight – will find someone they can share their life with and proclaim – through marriage – their love for each other.

    Until that day when all can marry, marriage carries a taint of discrimination. It will be better for marriage the day all can marry.

  • 647. Alan E.  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    There was mention of the tie a hundred comments or so above.

  • 648. Alan E.  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Hi Arisha! I would have invited you to lunch with us, but you seemed pretty busy. Plus, we left the press conference early, figuring that we could see Cooper's and Pugno's chat online later. It just wasn't as important.

  • 649. Rhie  |  December 6, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    will catch up later

  • 650. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    [...] 9th Circuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger hearing: live thread and chat By Adam Bink [...]

  • 651. Flash 9th Circuit Hearing&hellip  |  December 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    [...] Calitics publisher Brian Leubitz for chiming in his legal analysis as the trial proceeded during today’s liveblog thread, and for sharing with us his longer take [...]

  • 652. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    Oh, okay. Thanks. Now that I'm not a complete idiot… Thanks for the info, folks.

  • 653. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Crap! And all the states in the 9th Circuit then… sigh Nice dream, I guess. The pessimist in me says such a ruling would be too good to be true, though.

  • 654. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Noticed that, too. She did a great job!

  • 655. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    I still can't see the eiffel tower. :(

  • 656. BK  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    HELLO, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE THE 1970S!!!

    What kind of crazy world do you live in?

    (sarcasm)

  • 657. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    Once I get caught up here, I am going to my blog and make an overdue post, including the videos of our wedding. Thank you, John, for your kind words.

  • 658. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    I see the Eiffel Tower every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday when we take my mother-in-law (who will be 86 in February) to work at Rose's in Bordeaux village here in Fayetteville, NC.

  • 659. Alyson  |  December 7, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Good point!

  • 660. Alyson  |  December 7, 2010 at 1:23 am

    I thought at this point Cooper was starting to make a sinister pro- state mandated abortion argument. Suggesting It is society's interest to only have children in a particular marriage. Vet the nom ers would love that!

    I also was reading smith's questions totally different that you all. I hope you are right snd I am wrong but it seemed he had his mind made up already and was giving cooper an argument to use that HE thought met rational basis. He even made that comment dismissing the walker trial evidence suggesting walker just didn't let proof of his point in. I thought he was definately against us and the mind was closed to our brilliant lawyers arguements.

    And Teresa Stewart nailed it today too I thought!!

  • 661. Alyson  |  December 7, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Stewart held her own also with all these powerhouses today. The only real fools were the other side. Because – as I said before – they got nuthin' !

  • 662. Alyson  |  December 7, 2010 at 2:18 am

    To those who were there and got to meet in person – everyone said they met 'Alan's husband'.

    Alan's husband – do you have a name? You must be a tracker to to be there! thanks for being there!

  • 663. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 2:33 am

    p.s. Alan's husband's name is Brandon. I didn't omit it to slight Brandon; I just didn't know if Alan had ever posted his name on this public board and didn't want to invade privacy. But I see he has, so there it is. :)

  • 664. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Terry was a classmate of mine, and she does have a voice that is a bit high-pitched. But she did an absolutely terrific job yesterday, never missing a beat. Go, Terry!

  • 665. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 7, 2010 at 3:38 am

    You must have gone to a tough law school, Ann. But then, that is the best way to crank out lawyers who are as highly qualified as you and Therese Stewart! I will not lie to you–She added to the tears of joy I was shedding from the statements of David Boies and Ted Olson. Like them, she was so articulate, and in her own way so passionate about bringing equality back into the California reality. The world needs more lawyers like this!

  • 666. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Alan's husband's name is Brandon. I'm not sure if he's a tracker.

    waves madly

    Hi, Brandon!

  • 667. Alan E.  |  December 7, 2010 at 4:45 am

    He's more of a lurker.

  • 668. Freddy  |  December 7, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Ann, I don't know if Brandon is a tracker but he should be. I did catch a bit of the video from abc news 7 that had a shot of the two of them and of course Alan was was holding that great sign over his head, I have to admit, the picture on the this thread is much better as they were both smiling at the camera and looking like they were having a great time.

  • 669. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Freddy, we all had a great time. And we kept noticing that the antis who were there did not seem to be having a good time at all. They were scowling and angry. We were all hugging and laughing and having a great time.

  • 670. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:39 am

    I didn't mention Brandon's name earlier, because I didn't know if Alan had made that public knowledge…. hope Brandon didn't think I was slighting him. HI BRANDON.

    Btw, pictures don't do justice to either of them. I could tell you just how incredibly cute Alan and Brandon are, but I wouldn't want to embarrass them. ;-)

  • 671. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 6:54 am

    LOL, my "word of the day" email contained apophasis. And that was an excellent example.

  • 672. Freddy  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Kathleen, when I first saw the picture of Alan, the first thought that went through my mind was " who is that hot guy that is with Alan?" when I found out it was Alan's husband Brandon, that changed to "at least the guy bagged someone that is intelligent and good looking.

  • 673. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Brandon is all that and more. But then again, so's Alan.

    But I wouldn't want to embarrass them by mentioning that.

  • 674. allen  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:14 am

    I was anticipating SOMEONE correcting him on that but no one did.

  • 675. Kathleen  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Ann went to one of the best – Boalt Hall (Berkeley)

  • 676. Ann S.  |  December 7, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I won't embarrass Kathleen by mentioning that she attended an excellent law school herself, at UCLA.

  • 677. Prop 8 Proponents’ &hellip  |  December 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    [...] for Official English in support of the proposition that his clients had standing.  According to this report of the proceeding from Adam Bink at Prop 8 Trial Tracker quoting analyst Brian Leubitz, when asked to cite a federal [...]

  • 678. BK  |  December 7, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Did anyone else notice the 666 mark reached by this comments page? More proof that the anti-prop 8 side is evil. (snark)

    On a more serious note, does anyone know how to post pictures on the comments page? I know videos can be posted, but dunno about the images. Thanks.

  • 679. Kathleen  |  December 8, 2010 at 12:07 am

    The only way I know to do that is to upload them to a photo host like Flickr and then provide the link here.

  • 680. Judge Reinhardt’s q&hellip  |  December 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    [...] Bink quotes Boies, who stated, “Appellants here do not have a particularized injury that the Supreme Court said you must have.” [...]

  • 681. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    I read those questions and all I can think is that obviously none of the NOM people who asked those questions have even as much intelligence as that to be found in Cooper's arguments. (Yes I know his arguments are a severely losing proposition but these questions make even Cooper's arguments look good!)

  • 682. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    Bacteria derive there success on rapid hyper-procreation… too busy for marriage… but it does bring to mind a NOMbie version of Idiocracy!!!

  • 683. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    I am glad someone pointed out who was who… we love you Kathleen!!! I want to get you something nice from Russia… so it is so nice to see who will be getting it!

  • 684. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    Wow!!! So much effort into your flowchart. I am a little surprised on one commented on it. (Although I will concede that I was too busy to even read all the comments much less read much of the post even! We were all glued to the broadcast both internet and TV!)

    The best part, I think, is where you wrote that AFER will try to take this to the SC regardless of the outcome! I like to hear that part. It means H8ters had no case, no one to defend their h8tful law, got smacked down AND we still get to pursue national marriage with the Olson/Boise Dream Team!

  • 685. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Richard Jernigan tells us some of you guys are here in NC and will challenge out law… I do hope so!!!

    Although, AFER may get to the SC first… that would be soooooo awesome!

  • 686. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    I didn't know this at the time… I was wondering if the guy behind Therese Stewart in the CSPAN feed was one of them by the way he seemed to roll his eyes when she was talking.

  • 687. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Honesty? Hmmm… not sure Cooper wants to go there!

    (I do understand that he was referring to not have a case that set precedent with regards to the question just asked but still… it was a notable choice of words! Goes will with no evidence, no harm and just plain I don't know! ROTFL!!!)

  • 688. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    BTW thanks for that Alan… we were all wondering ourselves! Saying you had a flyer sounded more official in some way and put our minds at ease so that we could enjoy the whole thing.

    Also, know who Smith was let us really enjoy watching Smith's remarks, questions and facial expressions.

    Speaking of enjoyment… Wow! I would love to have Reinhardt as a grandfather or something… so intelligent and so very compassionate! Too bad we can't legally adopt family just that easily!

  • 689. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Hey Maggs, how about that for a judicial smack down!

    (Let's see you get them off the bench!)

  • 690. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    I say, rather, they are all hostile to stupidity compounded with poor preparation! (Which is what discrimination is.)

  • 691. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    I have watched the whole thing three times now and I too am wondering which comrades I am hearing in the background laughter!

    (Good thing I wasn't there… I would be smirking so much I would have been thrown out!)

  • 692. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    So Imperial County wants to give the DI's standing to defend the law but not personally defend it themselves, except the County Clerk is too smart to lose her job over this so she doesn't bother to show up, so the Deputy Clerk lends her name to the cause but also doesn't want to get up there in front of real judges, so they all hire some dumb shmuck lawyer to show up to make then entire county look like a bunch of Scopes Monkeys cowering in the corner throwing feces at the world…

    Does it get any better than this?… !!!

  • 693. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    This followed by Smith 'baby-talking' them through one of his questions… they act like children and are getting treated like them!

  • 694. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    I caught that too… that guy will go home, look at the back statement and say, 'I should have asked for more!'

  • 695. Felyx  |  December 8, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    The real shame is the fact that the shear stupidity displayed is still not bad enough to be refused the attention it doesn't deserve. No evidence, no harm, no case and yet still marriage is on hold…

    Pitiful…

  • 696. Ronnie  |  December 8, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    ROTFL….."like a bunch of Scopes Monkeys…"…..that was awesome…..<3….Ronnie

  • 697. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Felyx, can you call the house? We are currently home, but need to make arrangements to come up and see you & Papa Foma before you leave to see Kirille.

  • 698. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:04 am

    They really did remind me of some professors I have had who absolutely let students have it when they were consistently unprepared and consistently ignored their duties WRT homework and studying.

  • 699. Ann S.  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Hi Bob,

    If you mean the photo with a man and two women, that would be (L-R) DaveP, me, and Kathleen.

    Thanks!
    Ann

  • 700. Ann S.  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:52 am

    Indeed we were!

  • 701. Ann S.  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Bingo.

  • 702. Ultimate Colossus  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:15 am

    [b]Kid Age And Their Toys[/b]

    Selecting the best toy for your kids age isn't just a matter of picking out a toy that will engage, entertain and educate them, it is also a matter of safety. If you have browsed the aisles of any toy shop lately you most likely know that selecting the right toy might be a difficult undertaking. Not only do you wish a toy that you are in a position to remain confident will offer no risk to your youngster, but you likewise would like to select a toy that will help your youngster develop their full potential.

    Study suggests that kids who are provided with age- proper toys that are stimulating will help children to more fully develop their physical, cognitive and creative abilities. By learning which toys are correct for your kids age you can assist them to stimulate the connections in their brains which are answerable for building your kids future intelligence.

    Keep in mind that it's never to early to start this all essential procedure. Even the youngest babies are able to do begin answering to bright colors, helping their vision to formulate more rapidly.

    Kids under Six Months:

    • Mobiles in bright colors will stimulate vision
    • Activity centers to inspire reaching for motor control development
    • Mirrors created with baby safety in mind to encourage your child to explore faces
    • Rattlers and teethers which will introduce baby to new textures.
    • Board books-even at this young age reading to your baby will assist them with beginning language development

    6 to 12 Months

    During this occasion period, it is essential to begin focusing on interactive fool around with your youngster. This comprises of introducing the concept of trigger and effect as well working on eye-hand coordination. Easy games like "peek-a-boo" and " dab-a-cake" are fun methods to assist your baby discover the wonders of their new world. Additionally, look for these sorts of toys to further stimulate your child's growth and learning:

    • Toys which are musical and make sounds
    • Baby gyms and activity courses to stimulate crawling
    • Bouncers to stimulate physical activity
    • Play telephones to inspire communication through mimicking
    • Soft dolls and stuffed animals for children who love to cuddle
    • Wooden and soft blocks for stacking, filling and dumping games

    12-18 Months

    Around the time your youngster turns 1 they might start to stroll or try out taking those first actions. Toys at this age should center on supporting your kids curiosity in exploration while further developing fine motor coordination.

    • Swing sets and security trikes encourage physical activity and development
    • Building blocks for eye-hand coordination
    • Nesting cups and shape sorters to improve eye-hand coordination also as problem solving skills
    • Storybooks/picture books for language and vocabulary development
    • Toddler suitable videos and music

    18-24 Months

    By the time they're a 1 1/2 years old most kids begin to make use of their imagination in play. This usually accepts the type of make-believe; even so, in reality this type of play is assisting them to develop problem solving plans. Look for toys that support this important time of development by expanding their exposure to shapes, colors, ability to follow instructions and language. The essential key to remember at this age is that children are really learning with proactive play.

    • Costumes and dress-up to stimulate imagination
    • Push and pull toys that support both tykes that are starting to walk also as advanced walkers
    • Puzzles that are easy to manipulate with a little number of pieces
    • Playhouses and different scaled down objects that your child sees everyday will give them the chance to mimic the world around them.
    • Swing sets to produce physical abilities

    24-36 Months

    At age two children start to truly concentrate on fine motor coordination, despite the fact that they do not understand it, needless to say. By this age kids can start working with board games acceptable for how old they are as well as craft type projects and toys. Most children this age are also prepared to start playing with other kids, so you may also would like to search for games and toys which are more structured in nature that previous toys.

    • Simple board games and puzzles to encourage further eye-hand coordination and memory development.
    • Outdoor equipment like swing sets, riding vehicles and tricycles to build physical abilities
    • Beginner musical instruments
    • Playhouses
    • Sand boxes
    • Train sets
    • Dolls
    • Cars/trucks
    • Costumes/dress-up
    • Art sets
    • Storybooks for language development and vocabulary building
    • Videos and music, particularly those that expose kids to numbers and the alphabet

    By keeping in mind which toys are age- appropriate you will be in a better position to help support the assuaging quick increase in your child's brain and actually step up their learning and development.

  • 703. AnonyGrl  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Interesting. Thanks.

    ?

  • 704. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:20 am

    Yeah, I wasn't sure if this is spam (but no link) or just information. I do like the fact that it is NOT mentioned that a boy cannot have a doll and a girl cannot have a truck…so it was a good read!

  • 705. Oxy-Powder Reviews&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Get Healthy With A Colon Cleanse…

    [...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…

  • 706. cheap oil change&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Tire ratings guide…

    [...]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[...]…

  • 707. Free online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Get it…

    [...]Here is another great site[...]…

  • 708. free stuff&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    Catch it…

    [...]Cool website[...]…

  • 709. Tegaderm Film&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    tegaderm film…

    [...]the bellow sites are not closely releted to out site but I found this to be informative[...]…

  • 710. ikea wicker  |  July 5, 2011 at 12:56 am

    that was very interesting tpics

  • 711. car accident&hellip  |  October 25, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Digg…

    While checking out DIGG yesterday I found this…

  • 712. BREAKING: Prop 8 Ruling I&hellip  |  November 17, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    [...] judges heard testimony from both sides in the case (Prop 8 Trial Tracker live-blogged the hearing here), and afterwards the Ninth Circuit decided to look closely into the matter of standing. At issue is [...]

  • 713. BREAKING: Prop 8 Ruling I&hellip  |  November 22, 2011 at 3:06 am

    [...] judges heard testimony from both sides in the case (Prop 8 Trial Tracker live-blogged the hearing here), and afterwards the Ninth Circuit decided to look closely into the matter of standing. At issue is [...]

  • 714. Prop 8 Appeal to be Telev&hellip  |  December 13, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    [...] One of the places it is available is via C-SPAN and it all starts at noon (CST). There is also a live BLogging of the district court appeal available at Prop 8 Trial Tracker in case you cannot watch the video at work… like [...]

  • 715. Baju bayi  |  April 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is excellent, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about 301 Moved Permanently .

  • 716. Vikki Muckley  |  May 19, 2013 at 2:14 am

    Wow, wonderful blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is wonderful, let alone the content!. Thanks For Your article about 301 Moved Permanently .

  • 717. Tammie Gambles  |  June 25, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is excellent, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about 301 Moved Permanently .

  • 718. Gertha Godzik  |  June 26, 2013 at 6:30 am

    Wow, wonderful blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is magnificent, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about 301 Moved Permanently .

  • 719. Burton Olde  |  June 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is fantastic, let alone the content!. Thanks For Your article about 301 Moved Permanently .

  • 720. Equality On Trial62,000 r&hellip  |  December 17, 2013 at 11:30 am

    […] 8 trial”. As of this post, yes, that’s us in the first search result. And the second. And the third. Together, all of us at the P8TT mothership have helped this site become not only a […]

  • 721. Une Promesse Telecharger le film  |  February 19, 2014 at 5:11 am

    What’s up, after reading this amazing article i
    am as well delighted to share my know-how here with mates.

    Also visit my web page Une Promesse Telecharger le film

  • 722. obat herbal murah  |  March 18, 2014 at 12:33 am

    Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfillin

  • 723. Le Crocodile du Botswanga Telecharger  |  March 23, 2014 at 7:40 am

    Hi there to all, how is the whole thing, I think every one is getting more from this web site, and your
    views are good for new users.

    Feel free to visit my web site Le Crocodile du Botswanga Telecharger

  • 724. Nereida  |  April 24, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Your mode of describing the whole thing in this post is
    in fact pleasant, every one be capable of easily know it,
    Thanks a lot.

    Here is my web blog – Babysitting Telecharger Film Complet francais French (Nereida)

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

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

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

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