Leave a Comment Sagesse
BREAKING: Judge Ware grants motion to unseal Prop 8 tapes, with limited stay
September 19, 2011
By Adam Bink
Just in, Judge Ware granted the plaintiffs’ motion to unseal the Prop 8 tapes! Judge Ware granted a limited stay on his own ruling, until September 30th, meaning if the Court doesn’t grant a longer stay as a result of a motion or a higher court, the tapes will then be released to the public. Ruling:
Tens of thousands of you and Courage members signed a petition on this and raised awareness around the hearing. A good victory. Now we need to defend it.
More to come…
Update: At Courage, we believe there is an extremely good chance that this will be appealed and possibly stayed. So the fight isn’t over.
Below is a message we deployed to our members. With your contribution, we pushed hard to get these tapes released and to fight the frivolous motion to overturn Judge Walker’s decision on account of his sexual orientation. Now we have to defend this decision.
————–
Dear Adam,
Just now, Judge Ware ruled in favor of our side’s motion to release the Prop 8 trial videotapes! This is a critical victory: allowing the public to view this testimony will show that Prop 8 was based on prejudice, that ProtectMarriage.com had no credible defense and that Judge Walker was not at all biased.
This is not just another ruling, Adam. If the Prop 8 proponents have their way, the public would never see video footage of the trial, including their own witness testifying under oath that same-sex marriage strengthens America and its families.
What if we could take the videotapes and turn them into a documentary? Or TV ads in states like Minnesota and North Carolina, where voters will consider constitutional amendments in 2012 to ban same-sex marriage? The public could see that same-sex marriage isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s a civil right.
We went 2 for 2 in Judge Ware’s courtroom, Adam. First hundreds of Courage members funded the billboards (seen above) outside the San Francisco courthouse, asking Judge Ware to deny our opponents’ frivolous motion to overturn Judge Walker’s decision on account of his sexual orientation. He did. Then tens of thousands of you signed a petition to Judge Ware, demanding that transparency. He granted it. Now we’ve got to stay on offense.
Chip in today so everyone can see what ProtectMarriage.com and NOM are hiding.
Together for justice and sunshine,
Rick Jacobs
Chair and Founder, Courage Campaign
An update: A good summary from Paul at Gay City News here.
Update 2: The appeal that was filed, surprise surprise.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
104 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Alan_Eckert | September 19, 2011 at 10:16 am
I foresee an emergency stay coming soon from the 9th, but it's one step closer to seeing the trial! (and yes, there are many boring parts, but we need to be ready to point out which clips are the most important)
2.
Ann S. | September 19, 2011 at 10:18 am
Woo-hoo! Of course the proponents will appeal, but still.
3.
PhillyKarl | September 19, 2011 at 10:19 am
Sunlight! The best disinfectant!
4.
LCH | September 19, 2011 at 10:20 am
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
5.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 10:21 am
2. The Injunction by the U.S. Supreme Court
Defendant-Intervenors contend that unsealing the digital recording would violate the
injunction issued by the United States Supreme Court. (See Opp’n at 5-7.) However, the Court
finds that Defendant-Intervenors’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision is misguided.
Just like their whole case is misguided….
6.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 10:23 am
WOOT! will someone please post a link to the ruling?
7.
Elizabeth_Oakes | September 19, 2011 at 10:24 am
I want to be excited by this, but I have a feeling the Supremes will overturn this or grant an unlimited stay (or at least a stay until after they've heard the case.) Am bummed I'll be away from a newsfeed today and won't be able to track the response….but will rely on Prop8TT to catch me up later!
8.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 10:24 am
You KNOW the Proponents will appeal this and file for ER stay; whether or not it is granted should depend, in part, on the likelihood of success of the appeal, but we know the Court doesn't always give sufficient deference to this prong of the test for ER stay (IMO).
The motions panel this month in the 9th Circuit is: Hawkins, Clifton, and Ikuta.
Hawkins is a Clinton appointee and on the merits panel for this case; we know him from oral arguments (sat to far left from viewer's perspective). Clifton and Ikuta are G.W. Bush appointee. I don't know anything about any of their perspectives on 1st Amendment/freedom of information issues.
9.
Adam Bink | September 19, 2011 at 10:25 am
The link is above.
10.
Ed Cortes | September 19, 2011 at 10:25 am
I read the whole thing, and my smile got bigger with every page! I can't wait to hear the spin doctors at NOM try to take this one apart!! (Posted on the flash mob article before I saw this one).
11.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 10:27 am
And wanted to add – we know that if Proponents don't get an ER stay from 9th, they'll go to Supreme Court.
12.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 10:28 am
TX!!! I see the blue "RULING" now…..
13.
DaveP | September 19, 2011 at 10:40 am
All of these rulings in our favor seem to have a palpable cumulative effect even though they are all being delayed due to appeals, stays, etc. Walker's ruling, this one, all of the rulings telling NOM to divulge their donor lists, etc.
It feels like a huge river of equality that is temporarily piling up behind a weakening dam of hail-Mary attempts to prolong discrimination. And it won't hold much longer……
14.
rick jacobs | September 19, 2011 at 10:51 am
Be excited. If this is stayed, it's still another step toward progress. If it's not stayed, imagine ads using Mr. Tamm. Or Blankenship. End of story. Thanks to the P8TT family for getting the word out for nearly two years now. You all rock!
15.
Fr. Bill | September 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
NOM & Co. have to be among the most litigious groups in court these days. Perhaps the courts will eventually decide to shed sunshine on NOM & Co's sources for funding this litigation explosion.
16.
Alan_Eckert | September 19, 2011 at 11:14 am
Why aren't ads using Dick Cheney or other republicans who are for marriage equality?
17.
bjasonecf | September 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Very nicely put, DaveP!! And, I concur!!
18.
jpmassar | September 19, 2011 at 11:26 am
Great news!
19. U.S. District Court order&hellip | September 19, 2011 at 11:34 am
[...] Jacobs, Chair and Founder of the Courage Campaign, applauded the decision, writing in a letter published on the Courage Campaign's blog, Just now, Judge Ware ruled in favor of our side’s motion to release the Prop 8 trial videotapes! [...]
20.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 12:07 pm
was happy to read:
The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately return to Judge Walker the copy of the digital
recording that was given to him as part of his judicial papers, which he subsequently lodged with the
Court during the pendency of this Motion.
21.
Sam_Handwich | September 19, 2011 at 12:14 pm
That would be akin to the fava bean industry using Hannibal Lecter in its advertising.
22.
lhc | September 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Vexatious litigants rarely realize what they're full of …
23.
Brett | September 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm
HAH! That was definitely the funniest thing I've heard today!
24.
Nyx | September 19, 2011 at 12:21 pm
OT Question:
Will DADT officially die worldwide when the clock hits midnight in one certain timezone, or, is the Wicked Witch currently dying across the world 24+ times (don't forget those pesky half time zones in a few places)?
25.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Halloween is coming…was thinking to dress as the "Wicked Witch of the West" this year….maybe I could dress as Brian or Maggie instead ….. ::shudders:: too scary..think I'll stick with WW of the W
26.
DaveP | September 19, 2011 at 12:43 pm
hey, that's a good question…. It's already Tuesday in some parts of the world…..
27.
Phillip R | September 19, 2011 at 12:47 pm
I may have missed it but did Ware say anything about the whole claim that Walker was biased?
28.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The Court reiterates that the only issue it is resolving in this Order is whether the digital recording of the trial should be unsealed pursuant to the common law right of access to court records, given that the recording is a court record.
29.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm
But Cheney is actually on our side in this…he supports mariage equality and could be a very good spokes person.
30.
Reformed | September 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Will you be going with that black and white Miss Gulch version (Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute) or the green manifestation, If the latter, then you are going as my all time favorite movie character.
31.
Alan_Eckert | September 19, 2011 at 1:10 pm
5.The Fairness of the Trial Is Not Part of This Consideration
32.
Ronnie | September 19, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Awesome news….. <3…Ronnie
33.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 1:21 pm
From the NomBlog:
Judge Walker's Broken Promises (Continued)
September 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm
We personally don't have a dog in this fight, but given the Supreme Court personally intervening to prevent Judge Walker from videotaping the trial–and he then did so promising the litigants that it would be only for his personal use–this is not justice for the litigants. Par for Judge Walker's court.
34.
Sheryl, Mormon Mom | September 19, 2011 at 1:25 pm
What great news to come home to. I really felt that Judge Ware would go the other way, not because he felt that the tapes should not be released, but due to the emphasis he was putting on (paraphrasing here) the credibility of the court. Anyway, so very happy that I was wrong.
35.
Christian | September 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The motion to vacate because Judge Walker did not disclose he's gay you mean? That was decided a couple months ago. Motion denied, ruling stands.
36.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | September 19, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I'm very happy about this decision, and it was pretty fast, considering. Hopefully, all the next steps will go fast and smooth, as opposed to dragging this thing for long time as we now see with this standing issue in the Prop 8 case. I remember being excited that we will see Prop 8 on YouTube, I was going to download everything and watch the real trial, so I'm still excited about the tapes being released one day and I will be excited the day it finally happens. There is only so long you can hide the truth from the people. One day, one day… And today is also Felyx's and my 1y7m anniversary of our first introduction to each other on this very website, P8TT!
37.
mcc | September 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm
I guess it's just starting to depress me that I'm supposed to care one way or the other about some videotapes, meanwhile the "suggested last day" to file for a proposition to repeal prop 8 on the Nov 2012 ballot according to the secretary of state website would be September 30 and we are doing absolutely nothing.
Meanwhile Courage Campaign is sending me emails asking for me to send them money, so they can write blog posts about videotapes and ignore prop 8 itself; and EQCA is sending me emails asking for me to send them money, so they can counter-mobilize on some proposition about primary school curriculums while doing nothing to mobilize against prop 8. I feel like we are focusing on the tiniest minutiae possible as far away as possible from the real issues, while passing up opportunities to make real changes.
38.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 1:51 pm
NOMblog Headlines from the past 5 days:
Cartoon: NY-9
Election Watch 2012: A Christian Right Revival in 2012?
Brian Brown in NYTimes: Other Pro-SSM Legislators Are Going to Be Taught the Same Lesson as Weprin
Orthodox Union Leader: Weprin Lost NY-9 Because of SSM, Not Other Issues
Alan Keyes Notices: Gay Marriage Lost in NY-9
Peggy Noonan in WSJ: Gay Marriage Played a Part in NY-9
Rush Limbaugh on NY-9: "The Anti Gay Marriage Position is What Emerged as Victorious"
Maggie's Column: How Marriage Sunk Weprin in NY-9
"Jews or Gays?" Shocked Pundits Continue Debating SSM Role in NY-9
A Special Victory Message about NY-9 from Brian Brown
CNSNews: Same-Sex Marriage Played Role in NY-9 Upset
Weprin Effect: Early Turner Supporter May Challenge Pro-SSM Senator Kruger
Ripple Effect: NY Democrats Worried About Getting "Weprined" for Their SSM Support Next Election
39.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm
more:
WSJ Reporter Finds What Defeated Weprin: Same-Sex Marriage
Prof. Robert George on What Happened in NY-9
Politico: Andrew Cuomo a "Loser" in NY-9
Post NY-9 Consensus: SSM Vote Was a Major Factor in Weprin's Defeat
Politico: NOM a "Winner" in NY-9 Victory
NOM RELEASES "FLASH" SURVEY IN NY-9
VICTORY! BOB TURNER—AND MARRIAGE—WIN IN NEW YORK!
NRO's Bob Costa on NY-9: Marriage Mattered
Human Events on the Marriage Factor in NY-9
Slate: NOM's "Death Ray" Did the Deed in NY-9
Time Mag: Weprin Was Hurt by SSM Vote in NY-9
NY's Village Voice Asks if Weprin is "First Political Victim of SSM Backlash"
AP: Gay Marriage Lost Weprin Jewish Support
Brian Brown's Statement on Victory in NY-9!
Red State: "Voters in NY-09 Rejected David Weprin’s Vote in Favor of Gay Marriage"
VICTORY IN NY-9 FOR BOB TURNER AND FOR MARRIAGE!
40.
MFargo | September 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Another hopeful blast from the Judiciary. Better and better…
41.
Ann S. | September 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm
mcc, it doesn't seem to me that the political will among the LGBT community and allies was there to mount a repeal effort for 2012, perhaps partly because of the victory in federal district court that will hopefully stand up on appeal. Courage Campaign and EQCA can't do it without grassroots support, and my sense is that it wasn't and isn't there this time around.
Hopefully the district court decision will be held up and Prop 8 will be overturned once and for all that way. The advantage of it happening that way is that it can't just be re-passed in the next election cycle.
42.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Green! I was a green Frankenstein last year…have leftover black and green makeup ; ) https://picasaweb.google.com/10447808842394045682…
43.
MFargo | September 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I think it's all of the same piece whether minute or not…and it all adds up. And if you're disinclinced or can't afford to send money to those who appeal, I'd ignore it. But remember if these folks don't ask, we aren't aware that they may need funds to keep us informed.
44.
Ann S. | September 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Very nice! I especially like the shoes.
45.
MFargo | September 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm
They may be just as likely to refuse to hear it given Judge Ware's words. Fingers crossed.
46.
Sagesse | September 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Is it within the bounds of Judge Ware's dry judicial sense of humour to release this decision the day "8" debuts on Broadway? I'd like to think so.
47.
Sagesse | September 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Why A Heterosexual, Married, North Carolinian Father Of Three Cares About LGBT Equality
http://www.defshepherd.com/2011/09/why-heterosexu…
48.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 2:40 pm
thanks….I made left-over wood and metal scraps…its fun to be 6/'7" when I wear them! P.s. I used to HATE Halloween, but my hubby likes it so much I got into the "spirit"
49.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm
And Proponents are appealing that order, nath.
50.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm
*natch
51.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | September 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm
@mcc
First of all, there is no guarantee Prop 8 can be repealed with an initiative, nobody knows how the people of the state will vote this time, and nobody wants to spend millions of dollars on a campaign like that.
Secondly, even if Prop 8 can be repealed that way, I'm sure there will be lengthy litigations afterwards and nobody can say any future attempt to ban marriage equality again will not succeed. Do you really think it is a good idea to vote on marriage equality every two years and gamble with people's marriages? Don't forget that if we repeal Prop 8 through an initiative now, the court might say that the issue is moot and just throw away the case we've been hoping for for so long. The same is already happening with DADT case: the government says because it is practically repealed the case is moot and it should be thrown out, thus, if that happens, any future Congress may reinstate DADT once again — we need the courts to settle these issues and acknowledge their unconstitutionality, that way neither DADT, nor Prop8, nor DOMA will be back after their repeal. Think big, look into the future: in the long run courts' decisions are what will cement our successes.
52.
Gregory in SLC | September 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Love it! That occurred to me too : D
53.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm
What a nice thought.
Did anyone mention that Judge Ware attended the oral arguments at the California Supreme Court on the 6th? I would have said hello, but he was on the other end of the row from me and he slipped out quickly while we were all in line waiting to retrieve all our confiscated electronics.
54.
B&E | September 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I get tired of the email blasts asking for money too. However I must say that prop 8 tracker is my first stop for daily LGBT news and updates to these current cases. The courage campaign brings value to my life and have no problems chipping in when I can. Being in IT I understand the technology necessary to inform the masses is expensive.
Try to be patient, we are winning the fight with logic and reasoning. Those are things we have failed to see from the other side.
55.
Carpool_Cookie | September 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I don't get their claim of "we don't have a dog in this fight". Why are they so interested in the outcome, then? And why do they insist the trial is so important, if they admit doesn't effect them?
56.
be4marriage | September 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I thought the Proponents were going to appeal, but I don't think they ever did. Did the deadline to appeal lapse when we weren't paying attention? One can only hope…
57.
Alan_Eckert | September 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I got this email from AFA just now. They are upset that AARP is helping elderly LGBT people, too. You know it's because gay people are supposed to die before they become old (/sarcasm)
AARP uses member resources to advocate same-sex marriage and special rights for immoral behavior
Part of their membership fees or profits used to advocate same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" military policy and special rights for immoral behavior.
September 19, 2011
Dear Alan,
AARP supports the homosexual agenda
AARP uses member resources to advocate same-sex marriage and pro-homosexual military policy.
AARP membership cancellation information provided below.
Click here to send your email to oppose AARP's LGBT advocacy.
Page 38 of the July/August AARP bulletin contained an article titled "Pride Is Ageless" which announced AARP's plans for "advocacy efforts in the LGBT arena."
Above photo posted from AARP pride page.
The article stated "AARP has created a new online home for the older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community." The page links to news stories on such hot topics as same-sex marriage, gay adoption and the repeal of the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, as well as articles on personal finance, travel and other issues of interest. In addition, the site clarifies AARP's positions and advocacy efforts in the LGBT arena. Check out the page at aarp.org/pride. You may read this new AARP section for yourself by clicking here.
Take Action
Please forward this article to anyone that you know who may be an AARP member including friends whose parents or grandparents may be members and encourage them to consider cancelling their membership, otherwise their money may be used to promote the homosexual political agenda.
AARP members who would like to cancel their membership and receive a refund for their unused membership time may do so by:
Sending an email to members@aarp.com with name, address, date of birth and membership number and request to cancel. Please make sure that an email confirmation of cancellation is received within two days.
Call 1-888-687-2277 with membership number in hand and follow the automatic prompts.
Log onto https://mss.aarp.org/mss_idmbr.html with membership number in hand, complete the form and follow the "continue" buttons to cancel.
We have prepared an email for you to send to AARP officials to express concern regarding AARP's "advocacy efforts in the LGBT arena."
Take Action NowSend your email to AARP now!
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
Sincerely,
Tim
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
Help us Financially
Donate Online to AFA
One-TimeMonthly
Text the letters
"AFA" to 20222
to give $10
Standard messaging rates may apply.
AFA is happy to suggest you check out http://www.americanseniors.org as a Christian alternative to AARP. AFA receives no compensation from, and is not associated with American Seniors in any way.
Action Link
* http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/TakeAction.asp…
58.
Ann S. | September 19, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I've never been inspired to join AARP, but that certainly could help tip the balance!
59.
Carpool_Cookie | September 19, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I like that the ominous word SECRET is used on the very first page of the ruling; "Once an item is placed in the record of judicial proceedings, there must be compelling reasons for keeping the item secret."
Somehow (and THANKFULLY!), "secret" evidence and records don't seem to really jive with the legal system we enjoy in America.
60.
DaveP | September 19, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Yeah, me too! I remember being mortified when I first started getting stuff in the mail from AARP last year, having just turned fifty. It felt like the KGB had tracked me down or something! I was a bit offended that they thought I was 'old' enough to warrant receiving their letters.
But I think I'll go ahead and join now. And tell them exactly why, and that they had better keep up the good work of supporting LGBT seniors if they expect to keep my membership!
61.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Personally I think they ARE the dogs in this fight.
But of course, since unsealing the records does not have anything to do with marriage, they need to make this claim. No one in their right mind BELIEVES it, but they have to claim it.
62.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Yes….. but….
*little tiny quiet voice* he scares me.
63.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm
FABULOUS costume! Very well done!!
64.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:11 pm
I think that sometimes rulings go the opposite of what we expect because the judge is leaning towards a ruling, so when asking questions he is very specific and heavily AGAINST so as to make SURE that he is right, making the lawyer for whichever side he might be favoring go the extra mile to INSURE that the judge's original leanings are correct. This makes it APPEAR that the judge is really in favor of the opposite side.
At least that is my impression of how it seems to work.
65.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Yay! And congrats! I love that P8TT got you together. If you two ever decide to marry, you had better invite all of us!!!
66.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
LOL. Informed opinion says that Weprin lost in a heavily Jewish district because of his previous comments on the Israel/Palestine situation, and that marriage equality played little or no part in the vote, when it all came down to it.
NOM has more spin than a washing machine on overdrive.
67.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm
That did NOT occur to me, but how wonderful that it happened that way!
I love days like this that bring great hope with them!!!
68.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I started getting it when I turned 40. I was puzzled, and keep asking them to STOP killing trees for me, but I still get two or three mailings from them a year. By the time I am old enough to join, I will have recycled enough paper from them to write a book!
69.
AnonyGrl | September 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm
I like that Ware referred to the pieces that Walker used in his talk as "snippets" (which of course they were).
70.
Don Gaudard | September 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Anyone who is interested in gay legal matters should check out this casebook which has just been issued by a group of international jurists. The casebook is called "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Justice.
http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/09/resource-s…
71.
Sagesse | September 19, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Actually, speaking of dry judicial senses of humour, I was hoping someone bought Judge Walker a ticket for the Eugene O'Neill Theater this evening.
72.
Nyx | September 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm
LOL, that is the reaction I had a couple of years ago when I turned 50. I was living in the New York City area when I started getting notices. A short time later we moved to southern California and it took them only a couple months to find me at our new address. I told my partner that they are better than the CIA in tracking people down!
73.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | September 19, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Thank you so much for your words, AnonyGrl!
Kidding… We never thought this would happen, I never thought I will be hosting in my country a man I love so much. It's been 6 months since he left Russia, and we both were very upset when the US government denied me a student visa. I will never forget hearing him cry on Skype, ironically, those tears keep me going, I keep believing that it has got to be some serious feeling that we will carry through time, and one day, when marriage equality is finally the law of the land, anything will be possible for us.
Yes, that's the power of P8TT: it's not just some website, not just a vibrant community, but also a dating website
74.
MFargo | September 19, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Was he taking attendance for his class?
75.
grod | September 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm
In reading this decision, Olsen et al should note and advise the California Supreme Court of footnote 8. Here the State Defendant had informed the court that they had no objection to the A/V being unsealed. This is another example of the Attorney General taking a role in this case. Not sufficiently apparent in Olsen’s presentation to that Court on 'standing'. G.
76.
Sheryl_Carver | September 19, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I used their link to send an email to AARP supporting their LGBT policies. I don't know if these hate organizations will ever realize how easy they make it to delete their garbage & write one's own opinion, but for now it's an easy way to keep track of their hate campaigns & do what I can to counter them.
77.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Got a laugh out of this Reuters quote from Pugno. Thought you would too:
"Andy Pugno, a lawyer for a group supporting the ban, called the ruling 'bizarre,' and said the group will appeal immediately."
78.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I understand that completely actually.
79.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm
It was all the State Defendants, as in AG, Gov, et al. Here's the filing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63328732/3-09-cv-02292-…
80.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I have been noticing that too. Recently. Because I never paid close attention before.
81.
Kathleen | September 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm
It is docketed at the 9th Circuit as case # 11-16577. Here's the notice of appeal:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63328970/3-09-cv-02292-…
82.
peterplumber | September 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I joined when I turned 50 only because SOMEday, I may want the insurance and other things they offer. Meanwhile, I only browse thru the magazines and flyers they send before tossing them in the recycling bin.
83.
Sarah | September 19, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I know people keep saying this, but I did that once and got a reply email stating that I had communicated my unwanted view. I am wondering if this actually works, or if all the mass emails get piled together due to their origin or something. (??) Just an FYI for those who do this regularly.
84.
Tasty Salamanders | September 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm
That makes me feel better about the hearing on standing, because I got the impression the Cali. Supreme Court really wanted to grant standing for reasons unrelated to this case.
85.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 19, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Thank you SO much for posting this Sagesse! That is one of the best things I have ever read in support of 'us'.
I do so dearly LOVE our straight allies!!
86.
Nyx | September 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
If they are receiving many emails from the same source is there anyone actually reading them, or do they have an auto-bean counter keeping track of the total numbers from any one source?
87.
Adam Bink | September 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Nice of you to say, thanks, glad to hear it.
88.
Scott | September 19, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I was wondering if someone (Kathleen?) could let me know the standard of review for a motion like this. I think it's abuse of discretion/clear error, but am I wrong? Is it de novo?
89.
RebeccaRGB | September 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm
You can't turn the lights off now, the world is much too small….
90.
Jim | September 19, 2011 at 9:01 pm
The appeal document listed above is for the motion to vacate Walker's ruling, not to unseal the recordings.
91.
Str8Grandmother | September 19, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Admittedly there are a lot of balls in the air but I also thought that Proponents did not apeal Judge Ware's verdict that Walkers decision stands and it didn't matter that the Judge is gay. I thought that Proponents did not aappeal this.
92.
Bryce | September 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm
How will this appeal interact with their other appeal (of the motion to recuse)? Will we have yet another panel? What kind of schedule are we looking at on all the balls that are up in the air? Anyone know any of this?
93.
Buddy pro equality | September 19, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Hi all!
I noticed on the link to the proponents appeal that the filed date is from a while back. Not today as I'd expect. Confused.
94.
Tom | September 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
Yeah, that's the wrong link – has nothing to do with them appealing this ruling…
95.
Greg | September 20, 2011 at 7:34 am
Note that the Scribd document linked under "Update 2" of this article is not an appeal of this decision regarding the videotapes, but instead it is an earlier appeal (filed in June) of Judge Ware's decision not to vacate Judge Walker's decision.
96.
AnonyGrl | September 20, 2011 at 8:33 am
Because "bizarre", not being a legal term, describes how PUGNO sees it, but has absolutely nothing to say about the case itself. And Ware already dismantled their "because the Supreme Court SAID SO is why!" whining in his ruling.
97.
AnonyGrl | September 20, 2011 at 8:35 am
What a lovely comment! I may have to "borrow" this one.
98.
AnonyGrl | September 20, 2011 at 8:45 am
Make somebody's day… call the AARP at 1-888-687-2277 and once you get through the automated system and are talking to a live person, tell them that you support their good work in taking care of their LGBT members. Thank them for their support and ask that your comment be passed on. If you are not a member, tell them that you will be one day, and even more so because of their advocacy and support!
99.
Tom | September 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm
So have they appealed yet?
100.
Elizabeth_Oakes | September 20, 2011 at 10:19 pm
You have nothing to fear, as long as you don't go duck hunting with him.
101.
Elizabeth_Oakes | September 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Anonygirl! You mustn't invite yourself to other people's weddings! You sit politely and wait for an invitation, should one be issued.
*sits politely and waits for an invitation, should one be issued*
102. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | October 24, 2011 at 10:09 am
[...] now, the 9th Circuit granted an emergency stay requested by proponents of Prop 8. The stay is on Judge Ware’s earlier decision to release the recordings of the trial to the public. The court also set a week on which to hear arguments on the [...]
103. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm
[...] September 2011, Judge Ware ordered the tapes to be unsealed. Prop 8′s proponents filed an emergency request with the 9th [...]
104. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 2, 2012 at 10:13 am
[...] September 2011, Judge Ware ordered the tapes to be unsealed. Prop 8′s proponents filed an emergency request with the 9th Circuit [...]
Leave a Comment
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.