Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

ProtectMarriage.com files appeal of Judge Ware’s ruling on motion to vacate

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

Today, the proponents of Prop 8 — ProtectMarriage.com and their cohorts– filed their appeal before the 9th Circuit, as promised. A copy of the appeal can be found here. There is not much to it except noting the June 14th decision and that appeal has been filed.

Update: Kathleen notes in the comments:

The typical procedure is the appellants file a notice of appeal (as they did here), then the 9th Circuit will docket the case, giving it a case number, and set a date for submission of opening brief.

53 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ann S.  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    §

  • 2. LCH  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 3. Kathleen  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    This is simply a notice of appeal. The arguments will come when they file their opening briefs for the appeal, if briefs are ordered.

  • 4. Casey  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Totally unrelated, but is anyone else catching BB and Al Sharpton on The Ed Show?

  • 5. LCH  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    O.T. One more tech problem if anyone can help. It's happened a couple of time where I post a comment and updates on the site as "deleted by administrator" instantly. Is there a filter on content that get triggered by certain words? I cross my heart that it was not laced with four letter words or name calling.

  • 6. justjoel59  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    If I were Judge Walker, I'd be spankin' mad by now! Can the ninth circuit throw this out for lack of merit, or must they hear the appeal?

  • 7. Stuart  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Actually, I've had similar issues with my company's software. We have a system that sends us email to notify us of errors, and when some developer accidentally propagates a bug to a moderately-high trafficked site there is a sudden deluge of email. It's not spam and we all want to receive it but we use gmail for our corporate email and gmail has started flagging our own software as spam and we don't get those emails anymore – they don't even go to our spam folder! It's very frustrating and seems to be utterly outside our control.

    So I believe IntenseDebate when they say this.

  • 8. Lar in AZ  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Do you think that it is possible for a group to alienate all the judges to the point where the judges won't even listen to them? If possible, I think that protectmarriage.com will be want to be the first in line in achieving that goal. Sure, they have to let them appeal but do they have to listen to them. Maybe by the time they can take the appeal to SCOTUS, they will see that protectmarriage.som is just wasting the courts time and will refuse to hear the case. Just a thought on my part.

  • 9. Casey  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    With their utter lack of credible arguments or witnesses, combined with frivolous appeals that are wasting everyone's time, it seems they are doing a bang-up job of making sure *nobody* listens to them. Judges may be required to hear thier appeals, but the more we leave them to their own devices, the more they discredit themselves. It's like magic. Presto!

  • 10. RichB  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    How can you file an appeal without even stating a modicum of reason why you think you would prevail?

  • 11. Ann S.  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    LCH, that has happened to me, too. I'd like to know why as well.

  • 12. Casey  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Anyway, I'm going to bed, but if it turns up on YouTube, I recommend a quick watch. It's most satisfying with regard the totally unsubstantiated claims of NOM. Brian can't defend himself, and I think even he knows it. Pop some popcorn and enjoy :) Night, all! Hope everyone had a wonderful weekend of celebrating.

  • 13. Ann S.  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    There's a deadline to file notice that you're appealing. The briefs come after.

  • 14. JonT  |  June 27, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    I have yet to see that.

    There have been a couple of times where I've posted and it doesn't show up for awhile. Sometime a clear-cache+refresh in firefox then allows it to show.

    I use many 4 letter (and more) words from time to time – being a site frequented by adults, I do not think there is any swear-word filter in place.

  • 15. Alan_Eckert  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    More stuff to read and laugh at coming soon!

  • 16. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    And the ignorant, the paranoid, the sheeple will continue to empty their pockets to fund the continued & expensive attempts to delay the inevitable. I don't feel sorry for any of them, unless they are truly mentally incompetent, but it's just really, really unfair that not only do BB & MG & the rest of the leaders not suffer, but are actually benefiting from all this. If there is a god & a life review/judgement, as many religions believe, BB & MG & the rest are in for a BIG surprise. As in, "BB, you got some 'splaining to do!"

  • 17. Kathleen  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    The typical procedure is the appellants file a notice of appeal (as they did here), then the 9th Circuit will docket the case, giving it a case number, and set a date for submission of opening brief.

  • 18. MFargo  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    If that were a possibility, I think the folks over at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka would have had the halls of justice closed to them long ago…but they still manage to get rulings rendered in their favor. So let's be glad we have skilled folks on our side.

  • 19. Chris in Lathrop  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    ♫This is the kvetch that never ennnnnnnds….♫

  • 20. FlexSF  |  June 27, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Our reality, in California, is pathetic. New York has been in a proverbial K-hole, up until last week, and now it is the world's progressive leader? In the mean time, the bigot imbeciles defending the hoary proposition 8 are submitting total bullshit arguments, and wasting everybody's time. I'm so pissed off I can't breath. I yearn for a progressive oasis.

  • 21. Misken  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    Despite how ridiculous the Westboros may look to the public, their lawyers actually do a wonderful job in court and actually present credible and persuasive arguments on First Amendment grounds.

    Charles Cooper is ruining his career on this case, its ridiculous.

  • 22. Misken  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    The good thing about this whole detour is that we'll have something to laugh at while we wait for the California Supremes to whack protectmarriage.com on the head like every other court has done thus far.

    After all, this isn't much delay since we were going to be waiting for the Supremes anyway.

  • 23. Lar in AZ  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    MFargo, I think there is a slight difference between (maybe very slight) the two groups, if you look at WBC, they actually think of them selves as a fringe group and a couple of the children have actually left the family because they knew that they were a radical organization, (maybe cult is a better word). On the other hand, you look at protectmarriage.com and they think they are actually normal and right in their thinking. Aside from that, I think that the two of them have some striking similarities the only difference is one group has no clue about their stupid behavior.

  • 24. Bob  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Equality is a reality ,,,,, live open proud lives,,,, we are part of the human family,,,,, some people just haven'[t arrived at that reality yet,,,,, let our lives be a living testament,,,,,, never give up when we achieve EQUALITY,, we do so for all,,,,,, even bb, and mags,,,,,, they just don't realize it presently….. how sweet the freedom when they no longer have to uphold discrimination,,,,,, our fight ulitimately frees everyone

  • 25. Bill  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    I suppose that this is the only case in which they would have standing. My guess is that the CA Supreme Court will rule that only the Governor or Attorney General have the responsibility to represent the State.

    In this avenue, I guess they hope they can get the case to the US Supreme Court which they hope will overturn Walker's decision on whatever ground the US Supreme Court wants.

    Any port in the storm.

  • 26. Rob in CA  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    As it becomes more and more obvious that protectmarriage.com et. al. are simply using these appeals as a stalling tactic I think it becomes more and more reasonable for our side to once again ask the courts to lift the stay of Judge Walker's ruling. The fact is, Prop. 8 was declared a violation of the constitution of the state of California and is every day harming the citizens of that state. I especially appreciated Judge Ware's observation; "The fact that this is a case challanging a law on equal protection and due process grounds being prosecuted by a minority group does not mean that members of the minority group have a greater interest in equal protection and due process than the rest of society. … we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right." For over two years we've lived subject to a law declared unconstitutional. Certainly it's not asking too much to request that the stay be lifted and the law suspended pending outcome of appeal. At every juncture the disinegnuousness of the appellants becomes ever more obvious.

  • 27. Tony  |  June 27, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Perhaps the entirety of the ninth circuit will recuse themselves from this appeal. After all the issue at stake is how much a judge must reveal about his/her personal life – and all judges stands to lose a lot if Judge Walker's ruling is overturned because he didn't announce the intimate details of his relationship.

  • 28. Tasty Salamanders  |  June 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    If I were Judge Walker I think I would be more amused than angry that they are going through all these loops to get nothing because Walker knows he didn't do anything wrong and that other Judges will also think that. Basically the whole stupidity of it all, but that's just me. I mean he could be angry but based on how he conduced the trial he doesn't seem like he would get angry about it, at worst probably annoyed.

  • 29. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 27, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Here's the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GL0gjy9VKE

  • 30. JonT  |  June 27, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Nice – thanks!

    I am disappointed though when 'Ed' does not call Newt out in the beginning when he says 'Obama should be enforcing DOMA…'.

    He *is* enforcing DOMA — he's just no longer defending it in court. There is a difference – one the right seems so willing to 'forget', and the left, seemingly so willing to ignore.

  • 31. Waxr  |  June 27, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    The NOM website is kind enough to provide us with their "Marriage Talking Points", that is, the arguments they encourage their members to use while talking about same sex marriage. It can be found on NOM's homepage under the "Get Informed" tab. Or you can go directly to: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0L

  • 32. Bryce  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Does the court ever decline to ask for briefs? When can we expect a briefing schedule?

  • 33. rick jacobs  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:38 am

    I wonder if Mr. Charles Cooper relishes his role as the mouthpiece for a lost cause with no case. "Your honor, we don't need evidence." Right. That's what Ahmedinijad says.

  • 34. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:18 am

    Read the comments at the end of the article about ongoing investigations.

    Pentagon Confirms New DADT Discharges
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/2

  • 35. Sagesse  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:23 am

    Rick, the objective of ProtectMarriage and NOM is to do everything they can to see that Prop 8 is not overturned before November 2012. To have marriage equality in New York is bad enough (for them). To have marriage equality in both California and New York is a very different playing field. They just keep hammering away.

  • 36. Ronnie  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:37 am

    Subscribing & sharing…..

    This is the type of sociopath Destroy……I mean "Protect" Marriage, NOM, etc. enables….This is the America NOM et al. is creating & perpetuating…….

    Good As You points out another "Good" Christian with an affinity for violence towards LGBT people:
    Christian Post' commenter says to 'lock and load'…'clean up this mess'; gets seven thumbs up http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/06/chri

    (me) Another homophobic neanderthal quoting Levi. in response to Marriage Equality in New York, no doubt ignoring the shellfish "rule" that would put Red Lobster out of business. Also, telling by the picture he is definitely ignoring the mixed threads "rule", LOL, hypochristian.

    But here is the kicker….In the screen shot that is being pointed out, there is this little gem:
    "Time to lock and load, Christians. God has mandated we clean up this mess"……right after quoting Levi….. Where have we heard this whole "the solution to stopping gay marriage is murder" suggestion before?…….OH THAT'S RIGHT!!!!….. A NOM SUPPORTER IN INDIANAPOLIS, now known as "Lynching" Larry who attended NOM's Summer to destroy….I mean "protect" marriage bus tour.

    Anyway, Like Fiona always says… "And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love …"

    Hey NOM, religious liberty….just saying….. ; / ….Ronnie

  • 37. peterplumber  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:44 am

    What makes them think they have standing to appeal to the 9th? Didn't the 9th doubt their standing on their original appeal? Will the 9th send THIS back to the California Supremes for the standing question? If so, will it be rolled into the standing issue already on the books?

  • 38. peterplumber  |  June 28, 2011 at 5:56 am

    I am not sure if this has been shared here yet, but another right winger has changed his mind about Same Sex Marriage.
    I was wrong about same-sex marriage By David Frum

    Washington (CNN) — I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue at length online (at a time when online debate was a brand new thing).

    Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage — a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

    Read the entire article here… http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.ma

  • 39. Tony D  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:13 am

    I read their "Marriage Talking Points" a while back. Every time I hear the statement "redefining marriage" I'm hearing "ban same sex marriage." That's what they are really saying.

    "Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

    It's just wrong!!!

  • 40. B&E  |  June 28, 2011 at 6:44 am

    I am also having issues, I have yet to recieve any messages from the board, and have requested a password reset multiple times with no email in the inbox or spam box from the board.

  • 41. Adam Bink  |  June 28, 2011 at 7:02 am

    Drop me an e-mail.

  • 42. dtwirling  |  June 28, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Elsewhere in the news… "In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled that, like movies, music and books — video games are protected under the First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that while a state has 'legitimate power to protect children from harm' it does not have 'free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.'"

    Doesn't this speak directly (although indirectly) to the whole false argument of "but children will learn that gay people exist!"???

    Far be it from me to compare violent video games with a loving relationship between two consenting adults… but society's had the same violent (pardon the pun) knee-jerk reaction to both situations.

  • 43. Tasty Salamanders  |  June 28, 2011 at 7:46 am

    The reason they might not have standing on the appeal for the original case is because they have yet to prove that it is their right to defend it or that marriage equality causes them injury. Meanwhile this has to do with whether they received a fair trial from an unbiased Judge (which they got, regardless of what their complaining says), and they have a right to that so if they believe that there is a reason a Judge ruled a certain way due to bias (which they do believe) then they probably have standing to appeal. However it is then up to the court to determine then if their arguments hold any water (they don't). So while they should have standing to appeal the decision to not vacate, they won't win the appeal.

  • 44. Waxr  |  June 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Most Bible thumpers will quote Leviticus 18:22 rather than 20:13 in order to conceal the "be put to death" clause.

    Leviticus also says we may own slaves:

    Leviticus 25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.

    Why doesn't the law protect my religious freedom to own slaves?

  • 45. AnonyGrl  |  June 28, 2011 at 9:35 am

    You make an extremely valid and pertinant point. It is NOT the state's job to restrict ideas. If parents want to keep their children in the dark about facts that exist, they can do so, sadly, but they should not call upon the state to act as big brother. This applies equally to Grand Theft Auto and King and King.

    There is another side to this picture too. There has always been a preference to show someone being shot rather than someone being kissed. This is true no matter who is doing the kissing. All day long kids can see all sorts of shows where people suffer all sorts of violence, but to put on any sort of programming that has any sort of passionate embrace you had better do it late at night, and if it involves same sex partners, best that you put it on a premium channel that kids can't access at all! Sad but true. Slowly this is changing, and real (as opposed to characatured) relationships are becoming OK to show, but it has certainly taken some time, and we would still, as a society, rather see someone bloody and crumpled rather than holding hands crossing the street.

  • 46. Juliecason  |  June 28, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Oops! I am riding in a car, cheering your comment, but as I went to punch the thumbs up button we hit a pothole and I accidentally hit thumbs down. And I couldn't take it back! Didn't want to leave the wrong impression….

  • 47. Sheryl_Carver  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    In this case, I respectfully disagree with you, AnonyGrl. If the video games were only exposing children to different ideas, even if I disliked those ideas, I would wholeheartedly agree with you & SCOTUS.

    However, studies continue to show that when children watch violent videos & play violent video games, it increases aggression & desensitizes their reaction to violence, not just as children but as they mature into adulthood. And from what I've read, a lot of violence is directed toward women. To me, this is as great or greater harm than that which comes from letting them buy tobacco or alcohol.

    Here is a link to an article which cites references. I don't know enough about this subject to assess the quality of the references, but they sound legit.
    http://usm.maine.edu/smart/mainerti/files/bickfor

  • 48. Jon  |  June 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    NOM: good luck with that.

    NOM legal representation: have you ever considered advising your client they're going to lose?

  • 49. Sapphocrat  |  June 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Re your second paragraph, have you even seen "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (2006)? If not, you must. It's one of the most entertaining — and frustrating — documentaries ever made, and it illustrates your point beautifully: Sex is taboo; violence is go. Hetero sex gets an R; milder homo-sex is automatically slapped with an NC-17. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    I believe it was Marilyn Chambers who, regarding the MPAA rating system, once said: "It's more socially acceptable to cut off a woman's breast than to kiss it."

  • 50. Peter  |  June 28, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Far and away the most likely result will be that the 9th Cir will rule against this appeal. If they then appeal that up to the US Sup Ct, the Sup Ct will deny cert.

    Then later the 9th Cir will decide on standing for the appeal of Walker's decision. If they have standing, then it gets interesting. If they do not, then Prop8 violates the federal constitution, and CA has marriage equality again.

  • 51. Carpool Cookie  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I think he realizes lawyers play games like this all the time, trying to get a decision against their client dismissed. It's basically their job : (

  • 52. fiona64  |  June 28, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    I decided to google this, and discovered that Ms. Chambers died in 2009. I had no idea. Apropos of nothing, one of my friends was in "Behind the Green Door" with her. Couldn't find a verification on the quote, but you can color me not at all surprised if it's true.

  • 53. dtwirling  |  June 28, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    I just watched "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" on Netflix. Very, very interesting. I didn't know that members of the clergy were long-time members of the appeals board. I'm pleased that technology has progressed to the point where theaters are not the main/sole venue for distributing feature-length media.

    Thought/moral police, indeed.

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!