Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Tomorrow's NYTimes editorializes for lifting the stay on Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling

P8TT fundraising Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

Brilliant editorial. It dovetails exactly with what we’ve been arguing here (bolding mine):

Seven months have passed since Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Francisco following a much-publicized trial that turned up no evidence to justify the measure’s denial of equal protection and due process.

Yet the 2008 initiative continues to inflict serious harm on same-sex couples and their families thanks to a court order that prevents gay men and lesbians from marrying in California while the case is being appealed. That stay should be lifted now.

The appeal was argued in December before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It could be many more months before the panel rules. In February, it asked the California Supreme Court to resolve a procedural question regarding the standing of the initiative’s sponsor to bring the appeal. The state’s top court has said it will not even hold a hearing on the issue until September, at the earliest.

In legal papers filed last week, lawyers challenging Proposition 8 took note of the “serious, lasting, and irreparable damage to gay men and lesbians who wish to marry” caused by this extended timetable and called on the federal court to lift its injunction.

The stay should never have been granted in the first place. Applying traditional legal criteria, the extraordinary relief of a stay is only warranted when the applicant makes a strong showing of likely success on the merits and of irreparable injury in the absence of a stay — two arguments that cannot be satisfied here.

As the trial judge’s ruling affirmed, the denial of marriage equality furthers no legitimate governmental aim. And defenders of Proposition 8 can point to no real injury they would suffer if gay men and lesbians are permitted to wed.

Every day same-sex couples are denied their right to marry is another day of injustice for them and their families. Couples who wish to wed knowing that the appellate court could decide to uphold Proposition 8’s ban should be allowed to take that chance.

Personally, I am just shaking my head. I’m not sure I could have written a better editorial myself. Our arguments are resonating. Our stories of discrimination- like Courage Campaign members Shane and John‘s on ABC News, and Ed and Derence‘s in The Washington Post, The Advocate, and many other places- are resonating in the media. And tomorrow, a huge section of this nation will read it.

If you haven’t given to our fundraiser to keep P8TT going and keep building our work to result in outcomes like these, we’re about $4,000 short. That’s 80 people giving $50. We’re making progress. Please contribute. And ask a few friends to. Even better, become a monthly donor. We’re making a difference.

83 Comments

  • 1. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    In class tonight. Will read later.

  • 2. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Yes!

  • 3. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Brilliant post, Adam. And I know I could not have written an editorial to compare with this one. I am going to find a copy of the NYTimes while we are in Durham tomorrow so that I can have it for memorabilia. Thank you, Courage Campaign, P8TT staff, and my P8TT family, for all you do to help keep us informed, and to keep these issues in the forefront!

  • 4. JonT  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    I would love to see the stay lifted.

    Don't really see it happening, but there's always hope.

  • 5. Rhie  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I KNOW, right?!

  • 6. Rhie  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Agreed!

  • 7. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    "The stay should never have been granted in the first place." The Proponents brief for upholding the stay starts… we must have a reasonable prospect of succeeding… we must have suffered harm…. or the stay would not have been granted.

  • 8. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Absolutely F%@king brilliant!!!!

  • 9. SF Bay  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    This is a great editorial. And really, the Prop 8 crowd is one of the meanist, self-centered, self-important bunch of cry babies on the planet. My skin litereally crawls when I thnk about them.

    My wife and I are married here in CA and we have personal experience with the prop 8 crowd. My wife's (I love the sound of that) family are Mormons from UT. It just can't get worse than that. They gave money to take away rights from their own family member. It's just disgusting.

  • 10. Zak  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    A clip from the NOM website:
    4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

    A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

    Losing your right to dictate what is right & wrong for other people harms you?? I would like to know what the harm to them is. “It’s just not right” is like a 3 year old complaining because he can’t have desert.

  • 11. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Dude it makes them feel bad when they can't be the boss of us….and feeling bad hurts…SO DUH
    SSM is BAD

    UGH!!!

  • 12. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Another bi-national couple heartbreak because of DOMA: http://www.edgeonthenet.com/?117073

  • 13. SF Bay  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    That's always what it boils down to. "It's just not right" – according to who? YOU? Taking people's rights away or never allowing them to have them…now that just not right.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Maggie G is taking some well deserved heat in Maryland. Two posts from Alvin McEwan, via Pam's Houseblend.

    Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover
    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/18789/arora-c

    and

    Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children
    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/18796/maggie-

  • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    And I am no longer concerned about their feelings. Not that I think I am the only one in the P8TT family who feels that way, right, Mark?

  • 16. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    This is one more reason I HATE NOM and all of their ilk!

  • 17. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    And when Maggie hears about the 'benefits' of marriage, she scoffs about the government handing over a check. A benefit of marriage is not having your spouse or your parent deported.

    Vile.

  • 18. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    I want to smack her along side the head every time she spews her demeaning bile. And it makes me wonder the same question SA#3008 asks here so frequently – does she do this despite the fact that it hurts people or because it does.

  • 19. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    NOM does this because it hurts people. They are all miserable, so they want all of us to be miserable as well.

  • 20. SF Bay  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    You are absolutely right. My Mormon "in-laws" – they can't quite bring themselves to acknowledge to reality of our marriage – ooze happiness and love, but it's 100% conditional – you have to meet their requirements to be considered "normal".

  • 21. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I HATE THEM!!

  • 22. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    And as Patsy Clairmont expressed so well in the title of her book, Normal is Only a Setting on Your Dryer! The book is a humorous collection of things that have happened to her which prove that if you live long enough and go enough places, even in your own home town, the following things will happen:
    1) You will meet at least one person who finds at least one thing you do that is just totally weird
    2) You will meet at least one person who does at least one thing that YOU think is just totally weird.
    And her entire point with that particular book was to get anyone who reads the book to open up, become comfortable in his or her own skin, and just be who each and every one is born to be, regardless of what someone else thinks. I know that there are times I find that harder to do than at others, so there are situations all of us face where it would be, but those situations for me are becoming fewer and further between.

  • 23. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    So do I. They are causing too much suffering, and they are doing it willfully and with malice aforethought!

  • 24. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    You will meet at least one person who does at least one thing that YOU think is just totally weird

    And YouTube makes it easy to find them.

  • 25. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    The federal judge who ruled that ObamaCare was unconstitutional lifted the stay on implementing that policy like, five minutes later so implementation of the new health care (read: health insurance) laws could go forward.

    But we can't lift a stay that will allow people to marry and help each other get health care? Not after seven months and counting?

    Could everyone in the world just get their damn priorities straight, please? I'm really tired of this mucking about.

  • 26. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    For anyone who missed them as they came in, here are the Plaintiffs' motion and other parties' statements in support of lifting the stay.

    Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay http://www.scribd.com/doc/49407779

    City and County of San Francisco join in motion http://www.scribd.com/doc/49515890/CA9Doc-307

    Equality California, et. al. in support of lifting stay http://www.scribd.com/doc/49818202/CA9Doc-312

    Kamala Harris Statement in support of lifting stay http://www.scribd.com/doc/49815383/CA9Doc-311

    California Faith for Equality statement in support of lifting stay http://www.scribd.com/doc/49893711/CA9Doc-317

  • 27. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    And Proponents' Opposition to lifting the stay: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50236300/CA9Doc-320

  • 28. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Actually, that judge stayed his own decision, IIRC.

  • 29. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Right, and unstayed it too. But my point is: ObamaCare was also ruled unconstitutional, but that stay gets lifted superfast and the one on same-sex marriage doesn't. NOT FAIR.

  • 30. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    I thought the stay remains in effect. If it isn't, the feds wouldn't be able to go forward with aspects of the health care reform.

  • 31. Carpool Cookie  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Oh god, Richard. Now I'm mentally making a list of things about me others would find weird! This may be a long night…!

  • 32. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Ack, right–I MEANT: he held ObamaCare unconstitutional (stopping, not staying) implementation, but now he's stayed his own decision so it can go forward–even though it's unconstitutional.

    So I guess the reasoning could be the same: that Prop8 gets to go forward even though it's unconstitutional too.

    You'd think it would make sense to uphold people's Constitutional rights while appeals are heard, not uphold the laws that have been pronounced unconstitutional. I understand that the idea is we have to wait until a law has been pronounced UNCONSTITUTIONAL/FINAL by SCOTUS after several levels of examination, but it seems to me that more harm is done by continuing to deprive citizens of rights for the duration than would be done by letting them enjoy those rights sooner rather than later.

    I guess the argument is that allowing rights that aren't SCOTUS-approved would wreak bureaucratic and legal havoc should those rights then be revoked, and this is where I start to get frustrated with our paternalistic, conservative system even though I believe in the rule of law. I guess it's all well and good to take your time deciding such things when you're a judge who isn't suffering from civil rights deprivation yourself, in a system where you have all this power; maybe in a better world the people who are the victims get to take the lead and set the timeline with the support and implementation of an actual "justice system," rather than having the boot of our current slow and politicized legal system on their necks for years while the courts bat their liberties about.

    Can you tell it's late and I'm tired and frustrated? 'Cos if not: it's late, and I'm tired and frustrated–not just late in the evening, but late in the Prop8 game, and I'm ready to forgo the seventh inning stretch and get right to the last pitch of the ninth….as it were.

  • 33. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    See, I don't see the unusual things that people do as being "weird," I just think they're interesting. "Weird" has this second-grade snarkiness to it, and I have observed that often the persons rolling their eyes in different directions and declaring something "WEIRD!!" are usually just ignorant of practices that are perfectly normal in another cultural/economic/age group.

    Of course, my friend's story about a guy she dated who bit his toenails did creep me out, I admit it.

  • 34. Carpool Cookie  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I hadn't heard of the "Arora Controversy"…here's that article.

    Personally, I wonder if Maggie smoked a lot of POT in high school and/or college…because her brain sounds REALLY fried. It's so rare that her comments make any sense at all!

    ————————————————————————

    Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover
    by: Alvin McEwen
    Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 11:17:22 AM EST (PAM'S HOUSE BLEND) crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

    The situation with Maryland delegate Sam Arora which nearly derailed gay marriage in Maryland is fastly blowing up in the face of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization trying to prevent gay marriage from taking place.

    Arora is the Maryland legislator first supported the gay marriage bill. He campaigned on it, raised money because of it, and engaged in discussions with lgbt families in terms of why this bill is important.

    And for while he decided, even after all of this and publicly giving his support to the bill, to change his mind and vote against it.

    Arora faced a serious firestorm from voters who felt betrayed, angry, and hurt at his shift. Because of this, he changed his mind again and said he will vote for the bill, while emphasizing that the question of gay marriage in Maryland should be the subject of a referendum.

    Into this controversy stepped Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM, via a post on the organization's blog during Arora's initial change:

    First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

    Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

    Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.

    Supporters of the Maryland gay marriage bill seized on Gallagher's comment, claiming that she was unfairly accusing those angry Arora of being racists. And they had a point. Nowhere in her post did Gallagher address the simple fact that the ire at Arora was solely because of his backtracking of an issue which played such a central part in his election.

    Apparently THAT outcry against Gallagher was so strong that she felt the need to post the following "update" on her blog entry:

    Update: Some folks seem to think I'm accusing critics of Sam Arora of racism. Weird. Racism requires animus or bias towards a race, which I never suggested… It would be absurd to imagine that the people going after Sam don't like Indian-Americans.

    It is not absurd to imagine that picking a fight with important black Democrats would pick a fight in two core bases of the Democratic party and that it could be perceived as good to avoid that.

    Personally, Gallagher's explanation not only makes no sense, it sounds as if she was caught off guard by the events of the Arora controversy and is now scrambling for cover.

    She even sent me a personal email (this email was due to my constant nagging on her blog and a final request for an answer as to why she did in fact pull the "race card" in the Arora controversy):

    I'm pretty sure nothing I said would satisfy you. You are free to read things the way you choose. Your entitled to your opinions, but not mine.

    I clarified because people were misreading what I said. You find it unsatisfying and "bizaree." Well tastes differ. Take care, thanks for coming to NOM.

    Sounds like she is getting defensive to me.

    Whatever the case may be, I took advantage of Gallagher's correspondence to ask her the following:

    Thank you for your response Ms. Gallagher,

    And since you are in a responding mood, would you care to respond to the piece in PolitiFact which states that your organization, NOM is spreading a false story regarding kindergartners being taught gay marriage in Massachusetts.

    This story is a key mailer that you sent to Maryland.

    I would love to get your opinions on this.

    I don't think I'm going to get an answer to that question.

  • 35. Matthew  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    This question goes out to our P8ers who speak legalese.

    Does an argument like the glaringly extended time delay(thanks CASC) hold any water in the court of law?

    Do y'all think the 9th circuit only issued the stay knowing they would be using the expedited schedule?

  • 36. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    This is nothing more than wild speculation on my part. But it is my opinion that the 9th Circuit was a bit disengenuous in granting the stay in the first place – that the Court was indulging in a bit of balancing of interests by issuing the stay, but expediting the schedule. So, I do think the argument that the case has been delayed might be persuasive. I think the more important element, though, is that proponents' don't exactly have a high likelihood of prevailing in their appeal.

    On the one hand, I know courts are reluctant to tamper with the status quo while reviewing constitutional challenges, but at the same time, it's hard to see how the Court can, in good faith, justify continuing the stay.

  • 37. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    NH is on hiatus with respect to marriage equality, but this attitude bears watching.

    In states, parties clash over voting laws that call for IDs, limits on where college students can cast ballots
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti

  • 38. Franck  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    I read that article today and even commented on it. Situations like these are the reason why I never dared pull the main stunt. It hurts me to stay 11,000 miles away from C., but it'd hurt even more to be kicked out and leave him behind with possible legal trouble.

    I'm running out of options (and patience) real fast though, and people who tell me to take a wild shot do so less and less jokingly.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1355 days, as of today.

  • 39. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    tx 4 putting them all in one place. reviewing!

  • 40. Ronnie  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    Awesome piece Adam……

    "Applying traditional legal criteria,"

    Isn't it funny that the opponents of Marriage Equality espouse "traditional" this & "traditional" that, but are ok when tradition is broken in a court of law?….Oh that's right…. it is ok to throw out legalities & ethics as long as it works for those against Marriage Equality…. hmmmmmmm…. hmmmm …..just saying…. <3…Ronnie

  • 41. Ed Cortes  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    We do have hope, and it's kept alive here!

  • 42. Ed Cortes  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    I can't wait until we can post the "Malcolm in the Middle" song:

    You're not the boss of me now and you're not so big
    Life is unfair!

  • 43. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    Good Morning Franck. I'm losing patience too. Reading the article Kathleen posted is a keen reminder of this inequality. I'm not separate from my hubby but the stress related to that possibility suffocates our relationship and affects us economically, mentally, even physically. 1355 days! : ( Hugs and tears for you brother. Love, Gregory

  • 44. AnonyGrl  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:00 am

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY RICHARD!!!! :)

  • 45. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:04 am

    Happy Birthday Richard. Hope you and BZ have some wonderful plans today!

  • 46. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Ditto! HB Richard : D We were hoping for a Marti Gras lifting of stay…not yet….

  • 47. Ed Cortes  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Happy Birthday from us, too, Richard! We hope your special wish comes true.

  • 48. Ronnie  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:16 am

    Rollins Chastises Boehner
    By Advocate.com Editors http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/0

    "When things threaten to become too constitutional, thankfully, there’s someone like John Boehner, owner of every third tear cried in America, to step in and attempt to push America back into the good old days of darkness," Rollins writes. "Rather than shoulder the awesome burden of creating some damned jobs in America, he goes for the easy cheap shot of going after gay Americans. Again."

    The Defense of Marriage Act Blues
    by Henry Rollins March 7, 2011, 5:17 PM http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/th

    "Of course same sex marriage is constitutional! The right to be yourself, to pursue life, liberty, and property, is protected several ways over several amendments. John Boehner should know this. If only he read the Constitution as often as some of us do, he wouldn’t have bothered to lower himself to this time-wasting, pathetic attempt to invigorate his base of supporters."

    "Damn, congressman, we’re trying to get up the road here. Either lay out a plan for job creation for all of us to see or get out of the way. You are the Speaker of the House. Scratching around in the ancient dirt of repellent prejudice instead of tackling the real issues is amateur hour. You have a plan? Now’s the time."

    (me) LOVE OUR STRAIGHT ALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!……that was awesome…..Henry Rollins has been a very outspoken human rights activist supporting LGBT rights…..Tnak you Mr. Rollins for you unwavering support for Equality……<3…Ronnie

  • 49. Ronnie  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:18 am

    LOL..woah there typo….Thank you Mr. Rollins for your unwavering support for Equality……<3…Ronnie

  • 50. Ronnie  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:20 am

    Keeping it going….Happy B-day Richard….www pinches ….. ; ) ……Ronnie

  • 51. Ronnie  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:35 am

    NYC Adopts New Policy for Trans Marriages
    By Julie Bolcer http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/0

    In response to a threatened legal action, the city of New York has adopted a new policy to ensure that transgender people have equal access to marriage licenses.

    The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed the complaint in October with help from the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP on behalf of an anonymous opposite-sex couple identified as Jane and John, who are both transgender. When they tried to marry in 2009 in the Bronx, the city clerk demanded that each produce their birth certificates, something not asked of other marriage license applicants.

    “Under the terms of the new policy, issued on Feb. 7, 2011, once a marriage license applicant produces the required photo ID, the City Clerk may not request additional proof of sex,” said the organization. “Moreover, City Clerk employees are forbidden from considering the applicant's appearance or preconceived notions related to gender expression when deciding whether to issue a marriage license.”

    The agreement also calls for the city clerk to apologize to Jane and John, to institute gender identity and expression training for employees, and to allow the couple to marry at a time and place of their choosing.

    (me) Love this….EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!!…..<3….Ronnie

  • 52. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:42 am

    Good story! Woot to a victory for TRANS persons! It illustrates how silly it is try to classify people into only 2 genders….and how you can only marry opposite gender….AND what the hell!? "require additional proof of sex"? So obnoxious!

  • 53. DaveP  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:50 am

    Hmm. Well, maybe not wierd, but he certainly sounds remarkably limber ; )

  • 54. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:51 am

    gives me an idea though…maybe I could do a "fierce tuck" dress in drag and get married….could even change my name to a feminine name…. but what is feminine? what is masculine…why should that have ANYTHING to do with me or Franck or anyone else getting married….I'm getting annoyed, frustrated and desperate : ( "EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!!!"

  • 55. Sheryl Carver  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:55 am

    Adding to the Happy Birthday wishes, Richard!

    May your day filled with joy & wonder, & just the right amount of birthday cake.

    Love to you & BZ,
    Sheryl

  • 56. DaveP  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Henry Rollins kicks ass. Awesome.

  • 57. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:02 am

    HAPPIEST OF BIRTHDAYS MY FRIEND!!
    Big Furry Bear Hugs!!!
    Mark and Robert

  • 58. Kate  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:15 am

    Looks as though we've hit a lull in the fundraiser. I'll make another donation so that I can do so in the name of Karen Grube. Now, just let her try to claim it on her taxes!!!!

  • 59. Phillip R  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Big fan. My first 'guy-crush'.

  • 60. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:16 am

    ditto!

  • 61. Kate  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Adam, is there a way she can be notified that a contribution has been made in her name????? Anyone still have her e-mail?

  • 62. Kate  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:19 am

    That is, I want her to know that she has helped support LGBT equality.

  • 63. Owen  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:41 am

    Yeah, when I first saw that I was worried that they were setting up to keep voters from supporting gay marriage in 2012. :

  • 64. fiona64  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:44 am

    My favorite musician, David Bowie, in his role as the Goblin King in "Labyrinth," responds to Jennifer Connolly's complaint that "it's not fair" as follows:

    "You say that so often. I wonder what you are using as grounds for comparison."

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 65. fiona64  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:48 am

    When my boss found out that I was an author (I had been keeping it pretty quiet), he asked why I never told him.

    "I didn't want people to think I was … weird," I replied.

    "We're all weird. Everyone's weird. Don't worry about it; I think it's cool," he responded.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 66. fiona64  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Oh, I suspect that she still reads here. While there was no way on the donation form (that I could find) to officially donate in Louis Marinelli's honor (Hi, Louis!), you can all rest assured that such was my intent.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 67. Kate  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:54 am

    Yes, I wish there were a way to name them on the actual donation form.

  • 68. Kate  |  March 8, 2011 at 1:57 am

    ps: my personal nitpick: When I donate in honor of someone, it's because I respect and appreciate them. When I donate in someone's name, it's because I don't.

    /nitpick

  • 69. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:18 am

    I was hoping there was a way to contribute via PayPal rather than credit card…but donation pending. PayPal would just be faster.

  • 70. Steve  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:20 am

    The general idea is that it was only a lower court that made the ruling. That ruling may be overturned on appeal. So as it not upset the status quo and cause more confusion, the decision is stayed until a final decision is reached.

    That's why the proponents of a stay need to show that they are likely to succeed on appeal. If they can't do that, then the chances are good that lifting a stay wouldn't cause too much trouble.

    With the Prop8 case, there is also the fact that there are already 18000 married gay couples in CA. Simply adding more to that number wouldn't change much.

  • 71. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:21 am

    Happy Birthday, laissez les bon temps rouler, and may you have a year full of health, growth, and wonderful surprises.

  • 72. Steve  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:23 am

    It would be different if same-sex marriage hadn't already been legal for a short while. If there weren't 18000 married gay couples in the state. If the court had just decided to grant SSM and that decision were stayed on appeal, I could understand it. Not granting a stay would indeed upset the status quo.

    But as it is, it would only add more married couples to the ones already there.

  • 73. Steve  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:25 am

    May guess is that you may need an ID that shows your new gender

  • 74. fiona64  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:32 am

    I should have put "honor" in quotes (just like that, LOL).

    I agree with your point.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 75. JonT  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Good article. There is a quite a concerted effort along these lines (as well as union busting), with the goal of preventing a 2nd term for Obama.

    I expect this kind of crap to only increase leading up to 2012.

  • 76. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:45 am

    agree…I was just being obnoxious : /

  • 77. Alan E.  |  March 8, 2011 at 2:56 am

    I just watched that movie again a couple weeks ago when I was sick.

  • 78. Carpool Cookie  |  March 8, 2011 at 3:15 am

    Labyrinth = the divine Jennifer Connelly!

  • 79. Carpool Cookie  |  March 8, 2011 at 3:21 am

    Update: I watched the Jane Seymour version of East of Eden last night…which I've never read all the way through. (The James Dean version just uses the last third of the book.)

    Cathy Trask is weird!!!

    She makes me feel better about myself.

  • 80. Carpool Cookie  |  March 8, 2011 at 3:27 am

    "You are the Speaker of the House. Scratching around in the ancient dirt of repellent prejudice instead of tackling the real issues is amateur hour."

    Ooooh. That pretty much sums it up!

    It's really what I feel about Maggie's whole crowd. AREN'T THERE REAL ISSUES OUT THERE TO TACKLE ? ? ?

  • 81. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 9, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Ronnie, you really know how to make a birthday even better! I read this from my droid phone, so was not really able to reply to it yesterday, since I am swtill learning about all the features. But this really added to what what was already a great day! Thanks!

  • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 9, 2011 at 1:02 am

    I believe there was a PayPal link provided. I know I have donated via PayPal to P8TT. Go back to the DADT repeal thread when CC asked for multiples of $17 ($1 for each of the 17 years of DADT).

  • 83. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 9, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Thanks. It was a wonderful birthday, including dinner at Chili's, which meant that for my birthday we also got to support a business that supports equality for all, not just for the ones Maggie wants equality for.

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