Foot note and analysis --

The key factor the Circuit Court had to consider in deciding to put the Walker decision on hold today was
1/ Whether the ban’s supporters are likely to win their argument if the case is allowed to proceed to the merits.
2/ Walker found that the backers had no prospect of winning on the merits, and questioned whether the case could ever get to the merits because only state officials would have “standing” to appeal, and they are not.
So today the Circuit Court clearly rejected Walkers key argument-- their decision was unanimous in this matter---and given their schedule this stage of proceedings will go until 2011--which will be a whole different ball game--after the November politicians are in office.

Sharon has clearly not read the 9th court's decision and her zeal to bash Judge Walker once again is posting her usual factoids and fantasies aboutthe case.

The ruling was very brief and to the point-- it cut the chase---
In sparing the Supreme Court the burden of doing so, the Ninth Circuit motions panel consisting of two Clinton appointees, Michael Hawkins and Sidney Thomas, and one Reagan appointee, Edward Leavy today unanimously granted Prop 8 proponents’, and Imperial County’s motion for a stay of Judge Walker’s anti-Prop 8 judgment pending appeal.
Evidently they recognized that Walker’s effort to alter the status quo was so manifestly beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment,that the Ninth Circuit panel stated in one simple sentence that it was granting the motion.
It also ordered that the appeal be expedited, with oral argument to take place during the week of December 6.

This is the third major smackdown that Walker has earned in this case.
We are very much looking forward to a fourth.

I meant to say---
The ruling was very brief and to the point-- it cut to the chase---

"Gays" should use this interim to propose and support legislation to give parallel rights to "Gays". Sometimes Separate but Equal can work.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Both sides in this case have the option now to appeal the stay, upheld by the 9th court, to the Supreme Court.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] This judge far overstepped his bounds in trying to set himself up socially for the rest of his life. So be it. Fortunately, whether or not you agree with it, our system still functions somewhat, and still will not let one person overrule the entire system.. and the wheels of the courts continue to grind...again...

How many more times must this happen before we "get it"..we CAN'T shove our will onto the people. Let's get over it, and go for "separate but equal" for another generation, since most people support this and it would be no problem to achieve all we want. I don't care about the "name" marriage, and I have no desire to shut down churches or businesses that don't agree with my way. I have no desire to equate my plight with the racial plights of the past.

I just want to be able to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, from taxes to social security to citizenship path for my foreign-born partner. If I can have that, I am happy.

This is the time for us to take a deep breath, and re-think the strategy.

Sharon continues to attack Judge Walker (and the editors of this thread continue to remove criticism of Sharon's comments, while allowing her free reign to denigrate Judge Walker) by describing how our democratic justice system works as a "smackdown".
Sharon conveniently ignores the fact that the 9th circuit court specifically told the ballot measure's supporters to present arguments why they have the legal righ to appeal the case given that the state's officals refuse to defend the law. This was one of the key elements of Judge Walker's decision and it is now obvious that the higher court believes there may be solid gorund for his decision.

So that goes to show the ridiculous nature of Sharon's comment:
"Evidently they recognized that Walker’s effort to alter the status quo was so manifestly beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment,that the Ninth Circuit panel stated in one simple sentence that it was granting the motion."

Sharon does not realize that beyond extending the stay the court cannot really say anything before they hear legal arguments from both sides.

Sharon's contempt for the rules of law and Judge Walker have blinded her to how our justise system works.

Shoving 'our' will on people is exactly what the ban on gay marriage did. Why is it so hard for people to live and let live? Another person's marriage has no impact on others and should not be meddled with. I'm so sorry to all the couples who now have to wait even longer for their rights. During the 'separate but equal' days in the south, my dad, who is caucasian, used to sit on the back of the bus in order to demonstrate his distaste for bigotry. The time will come.

Re-Think, I could kiss you - but I won't.
Separate but Equal didn't work sometimes because it wasn't equal in expenditures. Some folk consider my using scare quotes around "Gay" to be anti-homosexual, but it is, rather, demonstrative of what will happen to "Marriage" if "Gay" "Marriages" are "Legalized".

This "will of the people" argument is factually wrong and, to my eye, mostly hypocritical.

It will be decided in court on whether Prop 8 is legal. People can and have held all sorts of majority views that trampled constitutional rights and were eventually thrown out by courts. So to be blunt it is absolutely right to "shove" the constitution on people if a majority of voters tries to take rights away from people.

Second, I have asked this several times but the "against the will of the people" posters have been really really silent on what their position will be when the vote is 52-48 for gay marriage instead of against.

I just bet they will drop the will of the people rant and argue the law when that happens.

Any of you all care to state for the record that when the vote is 52-48 in favor that you will say "it is the will of the people".

"So to be blunt it is absolutely right to "shove" the constitution on people if a majority of voters tries to take rights away from people."

Stephen, I take it, then, that you agree that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and not a state right...right?

Stephen,
There are plenty of credible polls currently published covering Arizona's recent Illegal Immigrant laws, Federal Health Care mandates and Obama's approval ratings. All apparently express the 'will of the people', but this administration plus the senate and congressional majorities don't care a bit. They enact legislation contrary to the very strong preferences shown in those polls. Some call it 'willful.'

So why should the rest of us be concerned about a hypothetical future 'will of the people' concerning Prop 8 or any other issue for that matter?

Do you think that perhaps the left is also only interested in enforcing laws that it believes in as opposed to carrying out the 'will of the people'?

No plausible connection can be made between same-sex marriage and the principles of the Constitution; no plausibly just case exists for dismantling the natural institution of conjugal marriage and pretending that other couplings or unions are indistinguishable from it;
and the American people cannot be chivvied by their “betters” into believing otherwise.
Americans now see the gay activists true agenda---the invasion of the rights of religious conscience.It is explicit in Walkers 137 page ruling, a 137 page ruling that was smacked down in 1 paragraph in a 2 page decision by the Circuit Court.

Today’s Washington Post lambastes Judge Walker’s ruling as “indefensible”:

"By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.
This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand."


Many prominent gay attorney strongly opposed this whole effort to attack prop 8 in Federal Court---because they understood what the consequences will be---

Sharon, your comment makes it look as if the Post editorial board wrote the quote instead of an op-ed columnist.

Anyone log on to the Post website and find out where the quote came from as I just did.

So why don't you step up and tell readers who you quoted?

to cut to the chase:

Edwin Meese III - Ronald Reagan's attorney general and now chairman of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Here is a free link to the Washington Post article by an Attorney General

Web Link

UCB Law Professor John Yoo had fine op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week, in which Yoo, who “supports gay marriage as a policy matter,” criticizes Walker’s “short-circuiting of the Constitution’s democratic process for the resolution of moral disagreements.”Web Link


As back up--- 38 states now have laws preserving marriage as between one man and one woman, 2/3 of the States can pass a constitutional amendment making that the law of the land---for ever.
Radical gay activists started this culture war-- they will reap what they have sown.
Ironically the two attorneys attacking the institution of marriage just want one last shot at fame and fortune before the SCOTUS--they get paid and get their books when they loose--they do not care -- follow the money.
Reasonable gays now realize that the litigation against the institution of marriage was a terrible, terrible mistake.

The same John Yoo who wrote an opinion for Bush legitimizing torture...

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Stephen L,

You are absolutely on target with your comments about "will of the people". I notice as you correctly predicted that nobody has been willing to say they will accept "the will of the people" when (and it is when, not "if") the majority of us support gay marriage.

Separate but equal didn't work in the Jim Crow days because it was racist. The back of the bus is not the same as the front. It doesn't work with gay marriage because it is bigoted. You just can't discriminate and pretend it's equal.

Since the marriage laws apply equally to hetero and homosexuals, the bigoted claim is bogus. It is arguably discrimination, but if so sue the chromosomes. If "Gays" are offered a legislative out but chose instead to play "Now I've Got You, You S.O.B." from "Games People Play" then they stand chance of alienating the sympathy of the masses.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Both the Merc and the Chronicle yesterday had articles regarding the standing of the pro-prop 8 people at the recent trial and how the courts may take that into consideration when reviewing the appeal:

Web Link
"Hardly anyone noticed when the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1997 that it had "grave doubts" that the sponsors of a ballot measure - in that case, an English-only initiative for government agencies in Arizona - had the right to defend the law in federal court.
Now that case could determine the future of same-sex marriage in California."

Web Link

"Before it can decide whether Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit must decide whether it has a valid appeal on its plate.
The backers of the voter-approved ballot measure have been left to defend the same-sex marriage ban alone, and there appears to be serious doubt whether they have the legal right to press the appeal on behalf of the state when California's two top officials, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, have refused to do so."


Note that this issue is one that Sharon has been using to denigrate Judge walker and his decision.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Looks like the editors are engaging in "way after the fact " editing.
Looks like they have deleted a couple of Sharon's posts from a couple of days ago and my responses to her from yesterday.
Point is the editors found nothing wrong with her posts for a couple of days and also still leave up many of her posts that continue to contain outlandish innuendo, factoids, misrepresentation and attacks on the lawyers (including one whose wife was a victim of 9/11)
one has to wonder what is the relationship of Sharon to the editorial board. It has been clear for a long time that the editors go out of their way to protect Sharon from criticism and leave some of her more outrageous comments unedited while taking the scissors to those that dare criticize her.
Is Sharon actually a member of the PA Weekly staff, whose job it is to write inflammatory items on a large number of threads in order to generate traffic on this site?

Walter, The point of equal protection under the law is to prevent just the situation you describe. Nobody should be forced to gain 'the sympathy of the masses' in order to enjoy civil rights. Civil rights are not about popularity or public relations. Gay people should not be required to win over judgmental capricious hard hearted folks. That is what entertainers, lawyers, and salespeople do. Besides, if I were you I wouldn't be advocating rights as the result of a popularity contest.

Carefully reread my letter. Explain to me how a law that affects all equally is discriminatory. I am not talking about sympathy of the masses, since by that standard I might have been hoist on my own petard years ago. I am talking about respect for the rule of law.

Observer - or anyone else who wants to answer my question.

If the point is to receive the same supposed rights (I don't think marriage is mentioned as a right in the Bill of Rights) as married couples presently receive, eg. visitations, citizenship for partners, and other things not presently covered by civil unions, why is there no move to get these things included in civil unions? Why are we not hearing more about changing the civil union laws to make them everything marriage would presently bring them. Wouldn't this be an easier thing to do?

I imagine that nearly everyone in California would be completely happy with civil unions including all the things that are presently excluded and there would be no problems for the populace in getting the law changed. Wouldn't you rather have what you need to get changed without upsetting more than half the Californian electorate? Or is it the fight itself that is fun?

I advocate for changing all the rules for Civil Unions to be everything that marriage is. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that we should not do that?

I believe the government has no business handing out marriage licenses - I consider marriage a religious institution.
Instead, the government should hand out civil unions for legal and tax purposes.

RT, you might be close. What I do not want, and perhaps ACT UP does, is for activists to use a court granted "right" to "get even" with contrary institutions.

The Circuit Court unanimously granted Prop 8 proponents�, and Imperial County�s motion for a stay of Judge Walker�s anti-Prop 8 judgment pending appeal.

No credible court will question Imperial County's standing nor the pro marriage lawyers for that matter.
Now the pro 8 pro marriage side knows all the strategies from Walkers Kangaroo court and the destroy marriage attorneys--- smart move.

The court could kick the can down the road until Whitman is in power.
Brown betrayed the destroy marriage crowd-- he could have put up a weak case and lost--- but he was mainly concerned with the elections and he knew destroying marriage is a very unpopular cause.
The court could also point out that Walkers kangaroo court was a travesty of justice and send it back to California for a fair trial-- either way it will take years and the gay activists have lost a lot of moral property by their tactics-- the latest polls show a dramatic loss of support for same sex marriage-- state and nation wide.
In 15-25 years we will have a dual tract system--domestic partnerships and heterosexual marriage nation wide[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Once again, we have Sharon playing fast and loose with the fact sof this issue

"The Circuit Court unanimously granted Prop 8 proponents�, and Imperial County�s motion for a stay of Judge Walker�s anti-Prop 8 judgment pending appeal."
It was a three judge panel from the court--not the entire court. The stay was not unexpected and says nothing about the case.

"No credible court will question Imperial County's standing nor the pro marriage lawyers for that matter."
What is a credible court? If the 9th circuit agrees with the opponents of Prop 8 will they no longer be credible?
Anyway, I posted two articles about the issues the court needs to look at with regard to standing.
Here they are again:
Web Link
Web Link

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"The court could kick the can down the road until Whitman is in power."
Actually, no, Sharon. The court will hear the case in December. Whitman, even if elected, will not take office until January.

"Brown betrayed the destroy marriage crowd-- he could have put up a weak case and lost--- but he was mainly concerned with the elections and he knew destroying marriage is a very unpopular cause."
I see that now Jerry Brown is a target for Sharon. I guess in Sharon's mind using the term "destroy" makes it a fact for her.

"The court could also point out that Walkers kangaroo court was a travesty of justice and send it back to California for a fair trial-- either way it will take years and the gay activists have lost a lot of moral property by their tactics-- the latest polls show a dramatic loss of support for same sex marriage-- state and nation wide."
I guess Sharon also feels using the term "kangaroo" to describe Walker's fair trial and thoughtful verdict makes it true also.
Note how Sharon uses the term "gay activists" and claims they are using certain "tactics"? WHich tactics is she talking about? WHo are these gay activists she denigrates? Also note that she talks about polls but provides no proof--first of all polls seem to indicate that more people are in favor of gay marriage (that is okay those are facts--a foreign item to some) and polls can also be made to say what the pollster wants. Anyway, more irrelevant material from Sharon--should rights be determined by popular vote?

"In 15-25 years we will have a dual tract system--domestic partnerships and heterosexual marriage nation wide[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]"
As long as these partenerships confer the same rights to all and are recognized by all states in the US.
Sharon has still not told us how gay marriage will effect her. She ahs made a point about loss of freedom of speech and religious freedom, but has yet to state how this is true. Maybe it is not???

Ask my friend Gay Devore what the redefinition of "Gay" did to harm him. Words do have meaning and harm to general intercourse comes from arbitrarily redefining them. See 1984 for examples.