]]> My role is exactly the role that a predecessor followed, [former California attorney general] Tom Lynch: When Prop. 14 was passed in 1964, overturning fair housing laws in the state, he did not defend it. And in fact, the California supreme court invalidated the popular initiative -- one that was passed by many more votes than Prop. 8. So it's the same principle position of upholding the federal Constitution when it conflicts with a ballot measure.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/ten-questions-for-jerry-brown.html
Source: Advocate  

]]> If this "totality of life experience" were so relevant to The Times, why did it not report on the sexual orientation of the heterosexual trial court judge who originally struck down the same-sex marriage ban in 2005, finding that it violated the California Constitution prior to its amending by Proposition 8? Why did The Times not report on the sexual orientation of each California Supreme Court justice who handled the same-sex marriage cases on appeal? Was it not newsworthy to The Times under its "totality of life experience" standard that the four justices in the Supreme Court's majority recognizing same-sex marriages in 2008 are heterosexual? Is sexual orientation only newsworthy when a gay judge presides over a case involving lesbian or gay citizens?

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/a-gay-judges-sexuality-isnt-news.html
Source: LA Times  

]]> Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland did not explain why the appeals court turned down the request filed two days earlier by the Pacific Justice Institute.

The institute now plans to take the matter to the California Supreme Court, Chief Counsel Kevin Snider said Thursday.

"We are disappointed that the appellate court showed indecisiveness in trying to prevent a constitutional crisis," Snider said. "They didn't want to deal with it."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/court-wont-force-calif-officials-to-defend-prop-8.html
Source: AP  

]]> A conservative legal group's emergency order trying to force the State of California to defend Proposition 8 in court has been denied.

The Third Court of Appeals in Sacramento ruled today against the petition by the Pacific Justice Institute in Beckley v. Schwarzenegger et al.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/breaking-news-appeals-court-rejects-attempt-to-force-california-to-defend-proposition-8.html
Source: San Diego Gay and Lesbian News  

]]> Fiorina criticized the recent ruling by a federal judge overturning Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. "The voters were quite clear," she said. "For that decision to be overturned by a single judge perhaps seems not appropriate."

Fiorina pointed out that she supports same-sex civil unions and the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, calling her positions "consistent" with those taken by President Obama and many other senators.

Boxer defended the ruling overturning Proposition 8. "We do have courts that check the legislature [...] that's what our Constitution says," she said. Boxer said that she thought that "people are coming around" to support same-sex marriage.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/senate-candidates-boxer-fiorina-spar-in-debate.html
Source: California Beat  

]]> With California laying off teachers, police and firefighters amidst an unprecedented budget crisis, it is the height of hypocrisy for so called 'conservatives' to demand that California taxpayers foot the bill to defend a discriminatory law that has already been declared unconstitutional in federal court.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/courage-campaign-blasts-efforts-to-force-governor-and-attorney-general-to-defend-prop-8.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgement that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/equality-california-condemns-lawsuit-to-force-governor-ag-to-defend-prop-8.html
Source: GLT News Now  

]]> A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court.

The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require the two officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month.

Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger, who also refused to support Proposition 8 in Walker's court, have said they do not plan to.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/09/legal-group-seeks-to-compel-calif-to-defend-prop-8.html
Source: AP  

Hey, it's Matt from Stop8.org. So, this week there was a new radio ad put out by the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay group with strong ties to the Mormon Church. And of course, it's full of lies about Prop 8. Let's break it down.

"San Francisco is unique, but should their values be imposed on the rest of America?"

Okay. Now, that's not a lie, but it's catty. And misleading. Gay couples aren't the ones "imposing their values" -- it's not like they're going to force everyone get gay-married. Gays just want the freedom to live their lives as they choose. If anyone's "imposing their values," it's the church-backed National Organization for Marriage, which is trying to make the entire country live by someone else's religious doctrine.

"A gay San Francisco federal judge"

Okay. Maybe Judge Walker is gay. A lot of people think he is. He's never confirmed or denied it. But so what if he is? NOM is making it sound like his ruling was biased because he's gay. But can they point to anything that shows evidence of gay-judge bias? No. They can't. Because it's a ruling that could have been written by any judge, gay or straight.

And besides, the Prop 8 Proponents had an opportunity to ask the judge to recuse himself. And they didn't. They only want to complain about the judge now that he didn't rule their way.

"A gay San Francisco federal judge has ruled that marriage between one man and one woman is discriminatory and unconstitutional."

Nope! Not even a little bit true. Did they even read the ruling? There's nothing in there about heterosexual marriages being discriminatory. All he ruled was that banning gays from marrying is discriminatory.

Straight marriage? Fine. Banning gays? Discrimination. There is a difference.

"His ruling could eventually impose gay marriage on every state in America."

Nope. It's not Judge Walker who would do that. It's the 14th Amendment, which was written after the Civil War and guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. So if they want to blame anyone, they should blame Abraham Lincoln -- or as they might call him, a gay Illinois laywer.

"This ruling is crazy and scary."

Nope. You know what's crazy and scary? If your wife is dying in a hospital, they'll try to stop you from seeing her. If your husband is from another country, they'll have him deported. If you have foster kids, they'll try to take them away from you.

These things all happen to gay couples all the time, and it's not just "crazy and scary." It's inhumane and terrifying.

"The judge claim as so called facts that children do not need a mom and a dad, and that parental gender is irrelevant to child development."

That's misleading. Judge Walker didn't claim it -- we've known for years that gay parents are just as good as straight parents, and that love and affection is far more important than your parents' gender.

That's backed up by tons of expert testimony, depositions, and even a statement by the American Psychological Association. NOM's just trying to vilify Judge Walker for acknowledging reality.

"He says that men and women have exactly the same roles in a marriage."

Misleading again. Judge Walker actually ruled that we no longer use what was once called "coverture," a doctrine under which women lost their legal identity upon marrying. Does NOM seriously want to go back to that system, under which the state treated women as legally inferior to men?

"He actually ruled that marriage as the union of a man and a woman is just an artifact of a time that's passed."

No. Let's look at the ruling. On page 113, he says that gender discrimination -- not marriage -- is an artifact. Specifically, he says that society no longer forces women and men into different roles. He's not saying marriage is an artifact-- he's saying discrimination is an artifact.

"And he slams people of faith by saying religious beliefs harm gays and lesbians."

Wrong again.

He's not talking about all religious beliefs. He's only talking about the belief that gay couples are inferior to straight couples. And this is one of his most thoroughly-backed up findings. Look at the exhibits. He cites specific cases of religious leaders harming gay couples by calling them sinful, by working to restrict their legal protections, and by creating "religious hostility." Case after case after case of people using religion as justification for harming gays and lesbians. The proof's right there. What are you going to argue?

"America doesn't have to accept San Francisco's values."

Nope. And America shouldn't have to submit to NOM's values, either.

"Time is short to save traditional marriage."

That's the biggest lie of all. The phrase "traditional marriage" can mean a lot of things -- marriage in which a woman loses her rights, marriages that prohibit Blacks, forced marriages, marriages in which adultery is punished by death. These are all traditions that have gone away, and we're better off without them. Just like the "tradition" of discriminating against happy, healthy, successful gay couples.

And that's what makes that such a big lie. NOM's time isn't short. It's already run out.

]]> A growing number of Republicans are breaking with the party's traditional stance to publicly state their support for same-sex marriage, a shift strategists say stems as much from demographics as from the renewed focus on economics and the "tea party" movement.

A solid majority of adults younger than 30 - about six in 10 - support the right of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, according to a Washington Post poll in February.

But even many older Americans and self-identified social conservatives have changed their view on an issue that just six years ago galvanized voters in support of President George W. Bush's reelection.

Gay Republican activists credit the shift to the heightened attention within the GOP base to jobs and the economy, and by a desire among strategists to expand the party's appeal.

"Our nation is at a crossroads, and conservatives are trying to rally together to turn back the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda," said Chris Barron, chairman of GOProud, a gay Republican group. "That's why we've seen people like Glenn Beck saying, 'Look, same-sex marriage isn't hurting anybody.' Because he sees a need to create a broad-based conservative movement."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/same-sex-marriage-gains-gop-support.html
Source: Washington Post  

Meanwhile, historians took a look at Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and noted that historical analysis played a major role in the case. And Obama was raked over the coals by The New Republic for his utter failure to lead when it comes to marriage equality.

Encouragingly, there was yet another poll showing that public support is gradually growing for equality. But there's some reason for concern, at least according to prominent lawyer Leonard Link: he pointed out that two guys in Wyoming have filed a lawsuit that appears to be a copy of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Without the resources of talented attorneys, he said, such "copycat litigation" could be a disaster.

]]> A little more than half (54.1 percent) of respondents to the Argus-Courier's online poll Aug. 19, 2010 agree with Judge Vaughn Walker's opinion that struck down Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/poll-most-agree-with-judges-prop-8-ruling.html
Source: Petaluma 360  

]]> My colleague James Downie has assembled a fascinating timeline of Obama's statements on gay marriage over the past 14 years, stretching from 1996 to earlier this month, when the White House responded to a judge's ruling on Prop 8 by reiterating that it opposes same-sex marriage. What the timeline shows is a pattern that can only be described as illogical and cynical. Obama argues that he is against gay marriage while also opposing efforts like Prop 8 that would ban it. He justifies this by saying that state constitutions should not be used to reduce rights. (His exact words: "I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.") Obama appears to be saying that it is fine to prohibit gay people from getting married, as long as the vehicle for doing so is not a constitution. Presumably, then, he supports the numerous states that have banned same-sex marriage through other means, without resorting to a constitutional amendment? If so, he might be the only person in the country to occupy this narrow, and frankly absurd, slice of intellectual terrain. Obama has also said he favors civil unions rather than gay marriage because the question of where and how to apply the label "marriage" is a religious one. This argument makes even less sense than his stance on state constitutions, since marriage, for better or for worse, is very much a government matter.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/digrace-obamas-increasingly-absurd-gay-marriage-position.html
Source: The New Republic  

]]> Now there is no reason to believe that California, either through the Langley Porter Clinic or anything else, has at any point in the past several decades attempted to conduct any scientific research into the causes and cures of homosexuality. But it's nice to know that they officially have given up.

But more importantly, this bill passed unanimously in the Senate (where it was sponsored by the newly reformed Roy Ashburn) and nearly unanimously in the State Assembly (except for this guy). And that is big news.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/california-no-longer-looking-for-causes-and-cures-of-homosexuality.html
Source: Box Turtle Bulletin  

]]> Do they think that because a federal trial judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, they can just run into any federal district court and get an injunction against their state? Did they stop paying attention to the news and not realize that Judge Walker's decision is stayed pending appeal? And that Wyoming is not in the 9th Circuit, so even a positive ruling by the court of appeals on the Prop 8 case would not be binding on their judge?

Good luck to them, but this does not strike me as a good idea.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/just-what-we-dont-need----copycat-marriage-litigation.html
Source: Leonard Link  

]]> More than ten years ago, on July 3, 2003, HNN published "The Historians' Case Against Gay Discrimination," a fascinating brief prepared by prominent historians to support same-sex plaintiffs in the famous case Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003), in which the United States Supreme Court struck down prohibitions against all private, adult consensual sex.

Many of the same arguments in that brief, presented by some of the same historians, were a powerful force in Judge Vaughn Walker's decision on August 4 of this year that California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/historians-and-the-prop-8-decision.html
Source: History News Network  

]]> Focus on the Family's Jenny Tyree has highlighted what she finds to be the strongest arguments from a recent Op-Ed penned by conservative personality Edwin Meese. So that being the case, we will now look at those same arguments, then proceed to obliterate them.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/obliterating-the-arguments-of-focus-on-the-family-and-edwin-meese.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote. "The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently."

It's the kind of ruling a scientist would love.

And that's no mere accident: while the case for Prop 8 is predicated on hypotheses and symbols, the LGBT plaintiffs, led by judicial heavy-hitters Ted Olson and David Boies, built their case on science. When Olson and Boies argue that marriage needs gays as much as gays need marriage, the backbone of their case is an ever-growing body of cutting-edge research.

And as luck would have it, the tip of that cutting edge can be found just minutes away from Judge Walker's office, at the downtown San Francisco office of the Gay Couples Institute.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/the-science-behind-the-prop-8-ruling.html
Source: Daily Casserole  

Steve Cooley, a candidate for Attorney General, says that he'd defend Prop 8 as well. What is with these people? They're clearly on the losing side of history: state and national polling shows a steady gain in support for equality. How many years do you think will pass before people like Whitman and Cooley are embarrassed by the positions they once took?

And speaking of awkward positions, it will be interesting to see whether San Diego prosecutes the nine activists arrested last week in the county clerk's office. They were protesting marriage inequality and were escorted out in cuffs -- now, the question is, will the city drop charges? That would certainly be the nice thing to do.

And finally, we come full circle a little good news: in Rhode Island, public opinion is tipping further in favor of equality. That's significant, since the current governor, Donald Carcieri, is none too friendly to the gays. With an gubernatorial election coming up in November, will voters support pro-equality candidates Frank T. Caprio and Lincoln Chafee, or anti-gay Republicans John Robitaille and Victor Moffitt?

]]> "She wouldn't be governor yet," Jacobs said. "The appeals court will decide before there would be a change of governor and attorney general."

UC Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little said Whitman's ability to defend the proposition would hinge on several factors - the biggest of which, of course, is whether she becomes governor.

It would also depend on whether the 9th Circuit decides the standing issue before January 6 and how the court decides.

"There are a lot of ifs," Little said. "If the 9th Circuit hasn't decided the matter by December, she could attempt to file a brief to say, 'Now, the state of California enters the case.'"

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/courage-campaign-meg-whitman-wont-be-able-to-defend-prop-8.html
Source: Sacramento Bee  

]]> If Whitman or Cooley are elected, they definitely could submit amicus briefs setting forth their positions at any of these stages. There is precedent for newly-elected officials doing this after they take office when their predecessors did not appeal. It therefore matters significantly whether or not they are elected.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/defending-prop-8-the-meg-whitman-steve-cooley-morass-with-insight-from-lambda-legals-jon-davidson.html
Source: LGBT POV  

]]> A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage -- the first poll to find majority support. Other poll results did not go that far, but still, on average, showed that support for gay marriage had risen to 45 percent or more (with the rest either opposed or undecided).

That's a big change from 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. At that time, only 25 percent of Americans said that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, according to an average of national polls.

The more important turning points in public opinion, however, may be occurring at the state level, especially if states continue to control who can get married.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/over-time-a-gay-marriage-groundswell.html
Source: NY Times  

]]> About fifty members of the gay rights group San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME) protested Proposition 8 by demanding that the country clerk issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

"We believe that county officials and the attorney general have the authority and obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both the federal court findings and that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and the governor's filings in Prop 8 cases," Tyler Dylan-Hyde told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/9-gay-activists-arrested-in-san-diego-protesting-prop-8-stay.html
Source: On Top Magazine  

]]> Mr. Newsom acknowledged in an interview on Wednesday that he had made a choice to be less outspoken on same-sex marriage compared with past years. He said his new tone reflected how the debate had matured and was not a sign that he had changed his commitment to the issue.

"This movement has nothing to do with me; I'm just a small part of it," Mr. Newsom said. "This thing is at a completely different level now. What we needed to do in 2004 was to put a human face on it, and I think we achieved that goal. Now let's take the politics and the politicians out of it."

Mr. Newsom's new strategy also appears to reflect a political calculation as he seeks statewide office for the first time. In the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, large pockets of the electorate remain hostile to same-sex marriage. Even if his Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, does not explicitly make an issue of it, there are signs that it will play an indirect part in the campaign as Mr. Maldonado seeks to portray Mr. Newsom as an out-of-touch San Francisco liberal.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/newsom-steps-away-from-limelight-on-same-sex-marriage.html
Source: NY Times  

]]> Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who's the Republican candidate for California Attorney General, would defend Proposition 8 in court if given the opportunity, says his campaign spokesman Kevin Spillane.

"The role of the attorney general is to defend the will of the people," says Spillane. "He would defend (Prop. 8) and appeal" U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that found the anti-gay marriage ballot measure to be unconstitutional.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/-attorney-general-candidate-steve-cooley-would-defend-proposition-8.html
Source: LA Weekly  

]]> Over the last two years, states such as Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia have joined Massachusetts in providing its citizens marriage equality. Rhode Island is one of only two states in New England where same-sex marriage is prohibited, though Maine did pass an equality measure only to have it overturned by its voters last November. Now, for the first time since we started tracking this issue in Rhode Island four years ago, a substantial majority of Rhode Islanders support marriage equality. This represents a significant--that is, beyond the margin of error--increase in support for equality compared to 2008 and 2006.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/rhode-island-voters-support-marriage-equality.html
Source: GLAD  

]]> In papers filed Tuesday, attorneys for two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco asked the court to extend a deadline for seeking reimbursement from the losing side. In this case, that would be the groups that put the ban on the 2008 ballot.

Sponsors of Proposition 8 defended the ban in court after California's governor and attorney general refused to.

Lawyers familiar with scope of the case suggest the dollar amount would be in the millions.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/lawyers-may-move-to-recover-prop-8-court-costs.html
Source: Mercury News  

]]> Almost immediately after U.S. Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down his decision declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Matt Staver's Liberty Counsel, which is closely aligned with Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, blamed the Alliance Defense Fund for losing the case. As I said earlier, you can tell Staver was furious because they didn't get around to blaming it on judicial activism until the final paragraph of their statement. Now, they've taken their cat fight to the Canadian Catholic LifeSiteNews:

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/schadenfreude-alert-liberty-counsel-still-blames-adf-for-prop-8-decision.html
Source: Box Turtle Bulletin  

]]> The issue arises because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend Prop. 8 in court. That was also the case in Arizona, where state officials refused to appeal a lower-court decision overturning a ballot initiative, and the measure's sponsors then sought to defend it themselves.

Writing for a unanimous court 13 years ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said state officials are normally the only ones who can defend their laws. There's an exception, she said, when a state passes a law allowing its legislators to represent its interests. But Arizona has no such law, she said, and the sponsors of the English-only initiative "are not elected representatives."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/how-1997-ruling-might-thwart-prop-8-appeal.html
Source: SF Gate  

]]> Maybe we should just let California be the Gay State. That's the latest thinking of some prominent red-state evangelicals, who fear that appealing California's recent same-sex marriage ruling to the Supreme Court could backfire, legalizing gay matrimony from sea to shining sea.

Last week, the case for signing over California to the Prince of Darkness was made on American Family Radio by David Barton, a Christian activist who served as vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1998 to 2006. "Right now, the damage is limited to California only," Barton noted. But he feared that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in an appeal, "will go for California, which means that all 31 states [that have banned gay marriage] will go down in flames."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/fearing-supreme-court-smackdown-evangelicals-discourage-prop-8-appeal.html
Source: Mother Jones  

]]> "The practical effect of imposing the stay until at least December is to give the 9th Circuit an opportunity to review more carefully whether the proponents have standing to bring an appeal," adds UC Berkeley School of Law professor Joan Hollinger.

"The court wants to hear whether or not the proponents have a big enough horse in the race," says Daria Roithmayr, a professor at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. "If they can't show why they have standing, the appeal is over and the trial court decision stands. If the Ninth Circuit rules they do have standing, then the case begins its ascent up the chain to the US Supreme Court."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-trial-post-stay-roundup-lesbians-love-boies-edition-coopers-strategy-plaintiffs-on-msnbc-and-.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> Backers of Proposition 8 this morning made one last-ditch plea to a federal appeals court to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in California until higher courts resolve their appeal of a federal judge's ruling striking down the state's ban on gay nuptials.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-legal-team-makes-last-ditch-plea-to-delay-resumption-of-same-sex-marriages.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

The hold on marriages is expected to last until Wednesday at 5pm, at which time it will evaporate -- unless the Prop 8 people can get the Ninth Circuit to step in. Can they do it? It's anyone's guess. There's some doubt as to whether the Proponents are even allowed to attempt to do so; and even if they are, there's no guarantee that it'll be granted. More suspense!

Meanwhile, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (the organization that sued to overturn Prop 8) stepped into the whole Target debate by asking that the company donate money in support of marriage equality. Target, you'll recall, earned some ire when it was discovered that they were bankrolling an anti-marriage candidate. No response from Target yet.

]]> The judicial clock is ticking down towards Judge Vaughn Walker's Wednesday, August 18th, 5:00pm lift of the stay in the Federal Prop 8 Trial. In the event that the temporary stay is lifted and once again, same-sex couples are allowed to apply for a marriage license, the leadership of Equality Action Now and the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center will host Wedding Ceremonies on the West Steps of the California State Capitol Building beginning as soon as the first couples arrive from the Sacramento County Clerks Office.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/plans-move-ahead-for-same-sex-weddings-wednesday.html
Source: Sacramento Press  

]]> As Walker explained Thursday, the defenders of Proposition 8 are not likely to prevail because they lack standing; also, it is impossible to see what "irreparable injury" will occur if there is not a stay of the injunction and same-sex couples are allowed to marry pending resolution of the appeal.

The result of all this is likely to be that gays and lesbians will be able to marry beginning Wednesday, when Walker's temporary stay expires. There then will be consideration of the case, over the next couple of years, by the 9th Circuit and ultimately by the Supreme Court.

But if those courts follow well-established law, they will need to dismiss the appeal on grounds that those who filed it have no standing. The outcome, then, will be that marriage equality will exist in California, at least unless and until in some other case, some day, the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/who-has-standing-to-appeal-prop-8-ruling.html
Source: LA Times  

]]> Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel recently had to apologize to his employees and customers for donating $150,000 of company money to MN Forward, a political group supporting Republican Tom Emmer's gubernatorial campaign. Part of the reason that the contribution was so controversial is that Emmer is extremely anti-LGBT rights, whereas Target has tried to present an LGBT-friendly image. Now, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which has led the successful court case overturning Prop. 8 in California, is urging Steinhafel to donate to the effort in order to show Target's true commitment to LGBT rights

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/american-foundation-for-equal-rights-urges-target-to-donate-to-anti-prop-8-movement.html
Source: Think Progress  

]]> Any number of analyses show Kennedy voting in the majority in more than 90 percent of cases, more than any other justice. He votes mostly with the conservative bloc. Frequently, he is the pivot around which the four other conservative justices swing, often writing the majority opinion in 5-4 decisions.

Kennedy, 72, is a Roman Catholic, like all the other conservative justices on the high court.

So assuming the injunction survives argument in the 9th Circuit, will it be shot down in flames by the Supreme Court?

Judging by the past, maybe not.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/under-the-us-supreme-court-kennedy-key-to-gay-marriage.html
Source: UPI  

]]> My guess is that in a case as newsworthy as this, the lead judge would prefer to convene the entire panel rather than make the decision himself. In any event, there could be a decision on the Emergency Motion within hours after the motion is filed, but it's more likely that it will take a day or two for the Judge(s) to rule.

We'll let you know if there is any news of a ruling.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-proponents-file-emergency-stay-request.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> "Judge Walker is not a dummy," said professor Michael Zamperini of Golden Gate University's school of law. "He knew if he lifted the stay they were going to go to the appeals court anyway. And if they had to do it in a rush, with people getting married and all that, the court just might feel more inclined to stop it so they could consider the case over these many years."

And yet, long-term strategic moves often result in the folks on the front-line suffering. It was not pleasant for people queuing up at City Hall today to be told their greatest desire was granted -- and then subsequently learn that it was not. But, in the grand scheme of things, this was probably the best move, legal scholars say.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/-vaughn-walkers-choice-to-delay-gay-marriage-praised-by-legal-scholars.html
Source: SF Weekly  

]]> The couple have been together for three years. When they had a chance to be married in 2008, they decided against it because they didn't want to rush things. Since then, they have exchanged rings and now consider themselves married. But they want to make it official, Mayhall said, for the sake of equality.

Both of them had been out of state this week, but they rushed back to Los Angeles Wednesday, hoping to be married Thursday evening "with the sun setting in the background."

Instead, they left dejected and, at least in the eyes of the law, still unwed. "I feel mentally and physically exhausted and disappointed. My body was all revved up in the waiting, and now that I know, it's just crashed," Rastrelli said.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/couple-left-standing-at-altar-by-prop-8-ruling.html
Source: LA Times  

]]> US District Judge Vaughn Walker refused Thursday to extend a stay - placed on his ruling that declared California's gay-marriage ban unconstitutional - beyond next week.

The decision clears the way for same-sex marriages to begin again in California on Aug. 18, barring intervention from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Walker did not immediately end the stay to give the appeals court time to weigh in on the matter.

While the judge's decision was greeted with much enthusiasm by opponents of Proposition 8, the voter-approved gay-marriage ban, there was certainly some disappointment among the many unmarried same-sex couples who were lining up at court houses and clerks' offices in anticipation of the stay being lifted Thursday afternoon.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-stay-ends-next-week-setting-stage-for-california-gay-marriage.html
Source: Christian Science Monitor  

]]> Judge Walker decided to deny the motion to stay his decision overturning Prop 8. But at the same time he also issued a temporary stay until August 18th to allow the Ninth Circuit time to decide whether or not it wants to stay the case pending the appeal. This is not surprising, and it is done out of respect for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Walker is simply making the call that is his (that a stay should be denied) but giving the Ninth Circuit some breathing room to make the call on its own. If the Ninth Circuit does not issue a stay by August 18th, Judge Walker's decision will take effect and marriages may resume in California. Until then, however, we remain in a holding pattern.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/analysis-of-judge-walkers-decision-on-the-stay-and-whats-next.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> Nearly half of all Americans think the Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.

Forty-nine percent of respondents think gay and lesbian couples have the constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law, while 51 percent say those rights do not exist.

Full results [pdf]

The gap widens dramatically when age is taken into account. Nearly six in ten Americans under the age of 50 say gay rights are protected under the Constitution. Only 38 percent of Americans over the age of 50 say the same thing.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/americans-split-evenly-on-gay-marriage.html
Source: CNN  

]]> The attorneys for Protectmarriage.com, the group behind the Prop 8 campaign, have already notified the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they intend to appeal Walker's decision. Yet there is some question as to whether they can indeed carry the fight to the appellate level.

Attorneys for the two same-sex couples who sued the state claiming Prop 8 violated their constitutional rights, as well as for the city and county of San Francisco, have claimed in court papers that the Prop 8 proponents fail to meet the requirements needed to seek appellate review of Walker's decision.

Pointing to what is known as "Article III standing," they note that "where private persons have intervened in a lawsuit to defend a state law, and the trial court has ruled for the plaintiff, intervenors cannot by themselves prolong the litigation through an appeal unless the intervenors independently establish their Article III standing."

In other words, unlike at the trial level where Prop 8's backers were allowed to defend the anti-gay law in court, only the state's governor or attorney general can appeal Walker's decision.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-appeal-creates-legal-thicket.html
Source: Bay Area Reporter  

]]> Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal judge who last week ruled to strike down Proposition 8, the California-voter mandated ban on same sex marriage, is repirtedly expected to rule by noon Thursday on whether same-sex marriages can resume, at least temporarily.

Shortly after Walker's ruling last week, he put in place a "stay," that is, a hold on the enforcement of his ruling allowing same sex marriages. That's why folks like Vanessa Judicpa and Maria Ydil, who attempted to get married last week in City Hall, weren't able to complete the ceremony and become legally wed.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/decision-on-if-same-sex-marriages-can-resume-expected-thursday.html
Source: San Francisco Appeal  

]]> The NOM Tour Tracker - the important off shoot of the amazing Prop8TrialTracker - has been following the National Organization for Marriage's month-long-plus national bus tour where they've attracted only handfuls of supporters, while Freedom to Marry and local marriage equality groups have turned out hundreds to protest NOM's stops. See Freedom to Marry's map for past and future NOM events.

NOT on the schedule is an event organized by NOM- backed Ruth Institute on Thursday, Aug. 12, at the Renaissance Airport Hotel, 9620 Airport Blvd, LA 90045. A protest is planned starting at 6:00pm. See this Facebook page for updates.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/protest-national-organization-for-marriages-ruth-institute-gala-in-los-angeles-on-thursday.html
Source: LGBT POV  

]]> As Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson noted, there is some confusion over the appeals process. There may only be a small window of opportunity for same sex couples to marry if Judge Walker lifts the stay on his affirmative ruling before the defendant-interveners appeal to the 9th Circuit to impose a stay and stop or prohibit marriages while Walker's ruling is appealed - if the defendant-interveners have standing to make the appeal.

Judge Walker could issue his decision at any time.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/advisory-if-judge-walker-says-its-ok-to-get-married.html
Source: LGBT POV  

]]> So where does this leave us? A strong indication from the Supreme Court that initiative proponents whose efforts result in the enactment of laws or constitutional amendments generally do not have standing to participate as parties in subsequent litigation concerning their constitutionality, and are even less likely to be found to have standing to appeal an adverse ruling on constitutionality if the state, itself, decides not to appeal. Although the Supreme Court refrained from actually ruling on the question in the Arizona case, it certainly signaled a disposition against finding standing in such a situation.

Whether the 9th Circuit will construe things that way when it is called to rule on the Proponents' appeal of Judge Walker's decision is uncertain, as is the question whether the Supreme Court would extend its reasoning in the Arizona English case to cover this situation. But it is certainly a plausible argument that a decision by the governor and attorney general may mean that the case stops here.

On the one hand, that would be fortunate for those who want to marry in California. On the other hand, it means that Judge Walker's decision remains merely a trial court ruling and order, with no precedential authority beyond the state of California. For those who think that Walker's very persuasive decision can survive appellate review, this may seem like a lost opportunity to achieve a regional (9th Circuit) or nationwide precedent that could then be used to attack similar amendments in more than 30 states.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/can-the-proponents-of-proposition-8-appeal-judge-walkers-ruling.html
Source: Leonard Link  

]]> Today the American Bar Association, the nation's leading legal organization, voted at their annual meeting to endorse marriage equality.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/american-bar-association-endorses-marriage-equality.html
Source: Box Turtle Bulletin  

]]> Most of us were so swept up in anticipation of, then excitement over District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last Wednesday, Aug. 4, affirming the constitutional right of same sex couple to marry that we didn't notice that court also posted videos and documents presented as part of the Prop 8 trial. All of this material - including the actual courtroom testimony (transcripts of which are available on the American Foundation for Equal Rights website - is now part of the record going before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Among the videos, is the edited (35:31) deposition of William Tam, the Executive Director of the San Francisco-based Traditional Family Coalition and a Protect Marriage spokesperson in the Asian community. Tam was the Protect Marriage witness who wanted out of the case because he said he feared for the safety of himself and his family.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/-10-judge-walkers-court-posts-video-and-documentary-evidence-presented-during-federal-prop-8-trial.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> It's not all that surprising that Imperial County filed a Notice of Appeal. It is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to decide for itself whether or not the County has standing to appeal. As I discussed earlier, there's a decent chance that Judge Walker and the Ninth Circuit will find that the official proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. While the arguments are different, I also think it's unlikely that Imperial County has standing. But from the anti-equality perspective, it gives them one more argument to make before the Ninth Circuit, so it's important to them.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/imperial-county-desperately-wants-to-appeal.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> The best argument that Prop 8 supporters can make is that they would be injured by the simple fact that California is not enforcing a law passed by the People. But the Supreme Court has held that "[an] asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court." (Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984))

I think there's a good chance Judge Walker will find that the Prop 8 supporters lack standing. The only parties in the case who do have standing (the Plaintiffs and the State) have not appealed and have affirmatively said that they do not want a stay. This means that if Judge Walker finds that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing, he also will deny the motion to stay.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/on-the-prop-8-stay-and-standing.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

Prop 8 has been found unconstitutional based on "overwhelming evidence", but that doesn't mean it's going away. While the proponents appeal his ruling, Judge Walker may allow the ban to stay in place.

But even if it does, Olson and Boies are delighted by the ruling, as is a relieved public (except for the proponents, who are pretty glum). And they're also defending their win, with both Boies and Olson giving particularly good takedowns of arguments against equality.

Obama, meanwhile, has been pretty quiet.

So now the big question is: what's next? Well, sometime this week, Judge Walker will consider whether to lift Prop 8 right away. And then the case will be argued before the Ninth Circuit sometime in early 2011. Then it'll probably go to the Supreme Court in the latter half of the year, or in 2012.

It's also important to note that this November's election will have a significant impact on how the case goes. Current state leadership has refused to defend Prop 8 in court, but Meg Whitman supported the proposal. That's why it's important to get Jerry Brown in the governor's office, Gavin Newsom in the Lieutenant Governor's, and Kamala Harris in the Attorney General's.

]]> Gay marriage advocates are becoming increasingly frustrated with President Barack Obama.

Immediately following Wednesday's ruling that struck down California's gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, the White House issued a statement in support of the decision.

"The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans," gay glossy The Advocate reported.

But an unnamed White House aide told POLITICO.com that the president does not support gay marriage, only civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/obama-frustrates-gay-marriage-allies-with-wobbly-prop-8-stance.html
Source: On Top Magazine  

]]> Normally I wouldn't inflate your blood pressure by asking you to watch FOX News, but this clip is not only tolerable, it's kick-ass. Ted Olson gave a clinic on how to dismantle certain conservative legal arguments on Prop 8 yesterday on FOX News Sunday:

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/how-to-dismantle-conservative-legal-arguments-on-the-prop-8-ruling.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> David Boies, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiff and Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council discuss the California ruling on same sex marriage.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/no-evidence-of-harm-from-same-sex-marriage.html
Source: CBS  

]]> Were Barack Obama to have the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice with a liberal one, or an incoming Republican President in 2013 the reverse, that would probably be decisive for the issue, perhaps for many decades.

My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls. For instance, will Sarah Palin produce a tweet or Facebook post containing the the phrases "activist judge" or "judicial activism" within the next 24 hours? It may depend on which type of conservatives -- the tea-partiers, or the movement conservatives of the Republican Establishment -- that she ultimately wants to affiliate herself with.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/will-gay-marriage-once-again-become-a-campaign-issue.html
Source: FiveThirtyEight  

]]> I think Judge Walker will deny the stay and force the 9th Circuit to start consideration of the appeal immediately. It is a safe bet that Alex Kozinsky and the judges in the 9th understand full well the stakes and intention of Walker; they are likely to move the case right along.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/the-stay-issue-in-the-perry-prop-8-case.html
Source: FireDogLake  

]]> At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University Law School.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality was a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children didn't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality were "going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-foes-backers-look-to-supreme-court-showdown-on-gay-marriage.html
Source: LA Times  

]]> In anticipation of the ruling, Brown's group embarked on a 22-state tour to end this month in the District that is aimed at spreading the view that heterosexual marriage is the building block of society. The group has stepped up fundraising, Brown said, and expects to nearly double its budget to $12 million this year.

Polls show that Americans have become more accepting of gay marriage in recent years and are about evenly split on whether they support legalizing it. In an ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted in February, about six in 10 adults younger than 40 said they supported legal gay unions, a statistic that suggests a demographic advantage for gay-marriage backers.

Still, every time voters have been asked to cast a ballot on the issue, they have chosen to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Most states have measures that explicitly ban same-sex marriage, including 31 that approved them through direct voter referendum.

Opponents of gay marriage say they can often shift opinion in advance of a vote by plastering the airwaves with ads, putting their experts on radio shows and saying that laws that allow gay marriage infringe on religious freedoms.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/both-sides-in-same-sex-marriage-debate-see-chance-to-galvanize-support-after-california-ruling.html
Source: Washington Post  

]]> There's no question that Judge Walker, like any other judge, I'd imagine, likes his rulings to hold up on appeal. That's why he did two very specific things with the Prop 8 ruling. He established a rigorous fact pattern, because the appellate courts will have to deal with those facts in their opinions. And, he basically tailored his ruling with respect to precedent on cases decided by the one man who will determine whether his ruling will stand.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/walkers-decision-in-prop-8-case-written-with-kennedy-in-mind.html
Source: FireDogLake  

]]> In his statement about the proposed stay of Judge Walker's ruling, Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California AG, is misrepresenting the earlier holding of the California Supreme Court when he says that the court "upheld Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 vote and declared it to be constitutional."

In that first round of legal challenges to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 under any provision of the U.S. Constitution. It was asked to decide only one question -- whether state law permits a ballot initiative to be used in putting the fundamental rights of a protected minority up for popular vote. Appallingly, the California Supreme Court said that such a use of the ballot was no problem. But that had nothing to do with any of the constitutional issues that Judge Walker ruled on this week.

Either Cooley does not understand the law or he is deliberately misleading people about its content. Neither speaks particularly well of someone running to be the State's chief law enforcement officer.

Kamala Harris, in contrast, has a long track record of supporting marriage equality, and her understanding of the legal and constitutional issues has always been sharp.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/attorney-general-jerry-brown-wont-defend-prop-8-what-will-steve-cooley-do.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have filed motions calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state.

The officials filed the motions after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously overturned Proposition 8, California's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

Resuming gay marriage "is consistent with Californias long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," Schwarzenegger said in his legal filing.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/schwarzenegger-calls-for-same-sex-weddings.html
Source: AP  

]]> Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let's take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary's power of "judicial review," the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen's rights have been protected by the Court's power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the "tyranny of the majority." In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/first-maggie-gallagher-now-debra-saunders-another-shocking-display-of-ignorance-in-the-san-francisco.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> An appeal hearing on California's Proposition 8 case will likely not be held until early 2011, according to a briefing schedule posted today by a federal appeals court in San Francisco.

Sponsors of the proposition are appealing a ruling in which U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker on Wednesday struck down the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban. A notice of appeal was filed minutes after Walker's ruling.

The briefing schedule, which was announced by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, does not set a date for hearing the appeal but provides for the final written brief to be filed in late December, suggesting a hearing will not be held until next year.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-appeal-schedule-posted-hearing-wont-happen-until-next-year.html
Source: San Francisco Appeal  

]]> San Francisco's powerful civil rights organizations and Democratic leadership greeted Walker's nomination with howls of protest. They branded him hostile and "insensitive" to gay and lesbian rights because of his representation of the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit against the Gay Olympics over the use of the Olympics brand. The protests continued unabated for two years before Walker was finally confirmed during the first Bush administration.

Now, Walker is the toast of the gay community, the author this week of an unprecedented ruling striking down California's ban on same-sex marriage because it violates the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples. And he is a villain to conservative foes of same-sex marriage, who've branded him an "activist judge" and peppered the blogosphere with accusations that he is biased because he is gay, which has been known in San Francisco legal circles and among his colleagues for years.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/federal-judge-in-prop-8-case-an-unpredictable-iconoclast.html
Source: Mercury News  

]]> Where to begin? There's just so much crazy that is genuinely difficult to choose just one nugget. Let's first start with the popular vote issue. I'm hesitant to bring this up again, because really? Really people?

Let's talk about this. Do we really want everything up for a popular vote? I guess it's easy to criticize when you are the one putting up other people's rights for a vote. But, flip the script, and what does the AFA say about it when somebody puts an initiative on the ballot limiting the number of kids you can have. I mean, limited resources and all. It worked for China, right? Right, AFA?

The larger point is that some rights are sacrosanct. They are not privileges that are earned or that should be put for a plebiscite. My relationship should not be disfavored because a majority of California voters get squirmish, or are fearful, or are baited into fear through a $40 million scare campaign.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/impeach-judge-walker.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> After U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the measure, he immediately issued a stay on his decision, which means it will not go into effect until appeals are filed. The stay goes until at least Friday, when there will be another hearing. During this hearing, Judge Walker will hear arguments and decide whether to extend the stay pending appeals. If he decides not to extend the stay, then Prop. 8 advocates will appeal that decision with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Then, losing side will probably file a "merits" appeal with the 9th Circuit, located in San Francisco. During this trial, lawyers will argue in front of three judges, who will then release a written opinion. This court has a reputation for having liberal judges, but the three judges are chosen randomly. Then, whatever side loses this appeal can file an "en banc" complaint to be heard in front of 11 judges on the court. None of this process has a deadline, so this saga could drag on for a while.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/after-prop-8-trial-whats-next.html
Source: Time  

]]> The appeal was filed by Protect Marriage, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 and wound up defending it after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused.

Walker, meanwhile, said he would consider waiting for the 9th Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/appeal-filed-over-gay-marriage-ruling-in-calif.html
Source: Sacramento Bee  

]]> We always knew a favorable trial decision would be appealed probably all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, so the legal theories advanced by Judge Walker have limited value. But as Ronald Reagan famously said, "facts are stubborn things" -- and the trial court's findings of fact and rulings on credibility are here to stay, no matter what Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito think about (as Stephen Colbert would say) "two dudes getting married." So for my analysis, I've decided to cover the most significant findings of facts and credibility that Walker called, and why it matters the most:

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/facts-are-stubborn-things-the-meaning-and-value-of-judge-walkers-prop-8-decision.html
Source: Prop 8 Trial Tracker  

]]> Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation's most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/marriage-is-a-constitutional-right.html
Source: NY Times  

]]> The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two gentiles with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the Jewish legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as Jew-free.

Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to Jewish marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/jew-marriage-judges-bias-will-be-overruled.html
Source: San Francisco Appeal  

]]> Send a thank you note that summarizes what this decision means to you. Whether or not you live in California, and whether you identify as LGBTQ or a straight ally, this decision gave more dignity to all of us. And, it's important to celebrate our wins and personalize them. For me, as I look at my two children, I smile a little bit deeper today -- knowing that we are one step closer to winning this battle for justice. I have Judge Walker and the American Foundation for Equal Rights to thank for that feeling.

So take a little time today to share with Judge Walker -- and with our community -- what this decision means in your life. Send a thank you to the judge, and we'll deliver a bound copy of your thank you's to Judge Walker later this month. When you're done, we'll send you an email with a way to share a photo or record a video to tell the world what this decision means to you. We'll post your creations to our website so that the world can see our community's response.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/thank-you-judge-walker.html
Source: GetEQUAL  

]]> The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman.

Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority. Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-judge-walkers-bias-will-be-overruled.html
Source: SF Gate  

]]> A jubilant crowd took to the streets in San Francisco on Wednesday night to cheer Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, addressed a crowd of around 800 people from the steps of City Hall. "The last time I stood on these steps, we were in pain because Prop 8 had just passed," she said as she blinked back tears. At the time, she recalled, her son comforted her, "Mom, it's just a matter of time."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-ruling-met-with-tears-dancing-and-resolve.html
Source: Bay Area Reporter  

]]> Yesterday's federal judge overturned California's statewide initiative banning same-sex marriage was probably San Francisco's biggest story -- our coverage of the decision was pretty much the only thing anyone seemed to read on the Appeal yesterday, and the covers of the print Examiner and Chronicle were dominated by the story.

We've rounded up all the local coverage of the decision and reaction that hit our RSS feeds since yesterday afternoon for your reading pleasure, let us know if we missed something and we'll add it.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/prop-8-coverage-roundup-the-chrons-bigoted-op-ed-winning-at-dinner-and-reaction-pieces-galore.html
Source: San Francisco Appeal  

]]> In her inimitable style, Rachel Maddow breaks down how the "work" of Dr. George "Rentboy" Rekers played a role in today's ruling. Watch and enjoy!

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/rachel-maddow-on-dr-george-rekers-role-in-the-overturn-of-prop-8.html
Source: Joe My God  

]]> "The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/white-house-statement-on-proposition-8.html
Source: Advocate  

]]> In May 2009, when we learned Chad Griffin had lined up Ted Olson and David Boies to argue the shit out of Prop 8's unconstitutionality, America and California's Gay Inc. groups were furious. Now they're so happy!

HRC joined Freedom to Marry, ACLU, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, Victory Fund, Log Cabin Republicans, and PFLAG in denouncing the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit, saying in an open letter, "Rather than filing premature lawsuits, we need to talk to our friends, family and neighbors, and help them understand why denial of the freedom to marry is wrong."

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/remember-when-hrc-aclu-bashed-the-perry-prop-8-lawsuit.html
Source: Queerty  

]]> Judge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count--in his opinion today--seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

]]> Read more: http://Stop8.org/2010/08/judge-walkers-decision-to-overturn-prop-8-is-factual-well-reasoned-and-powerful.html
Source: Slate