Remember that whole "Prop 8" thing? Yeah...

[Tyrath]

I'm a bit bemused by the comments in this thread about the judge's orientation being a conflict of interest or that he should recuse himself or whatever.

It's a bit like saying a black judge should not hear civil rights cases. Anyone who says that would be flayed alive by the majority of the population, yet somehow it makes sense when the judge is gay.

Why should gay people get to decide what gay people can or can't do?!

[Kuya]

Judge Vaughn Walker's homosexuality has been accepted as fact ever since a San Francisco Chronicle report called it an "open secret" earlier this year. The judge, assigned to California's same-sex marriage case, has remained silent on the issue, but the claim recently reappeared in major news outlets, including the New York Times, following his decision last week to strike down Proposition 8. Throughout, the source has been the original Chronicle column by Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, which obliquely cited "many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker."

The story begins long before the Chronicle ran its blind item. Last summer, local gay activist Michael Petrelis published a blog post announcing that his "gaydar's bells and whistles went off" when he saw a photo of Walker. After getting a chance to watch the judge live and in-person behind the bench, he was convinced. On his blog, Petrelis Files, he dished: "His chipper demeanor, and low-key humor that several times set off loud laughter from lawyers and spectators, gave me the feeling Walker would make an excellent entertainer at a gay piano bar for refined mature gentlemen." Beyond his humorous hunch, the only evidence Petrelis had of Walker's sexuality was that he'd "heard from two respected veteran LGBT community reporters that [Walker] is considered 'family.'"

That's largely how this story goes: Someone knows someone who once saw Walker with his partner. The only people who would comment to Salon on Walker's sexuality -- either on or off the record -- presented it as knowledge gleaned through the grapevine. Jenny Pizer, the National Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal, used to live in San Francisco and knew Walker, but only professionally. "A number of people have told me that they have [socialized with Walker] and that in recent years he has brought a same-sex partner to professional or social events," she told Salon. "Enough people have said that that I have the impression that it's true."

In May, Petrelis happened to come across Walker dining in an upscale Castro restaurant with Brett Andrews, the executive director of a local AIDS organization. He snapped a photo (seen above) of the pair sitting at a table in the window -- a convenient illustration of Walker's "glass closet," he said -- and then ventured inside to ask the judge whether he would "come out." According to Petrelis, Walker's presumably sarcastic response was: "Do you mean come out for some socializing?" Petrelis went so far as to look up the deed for Walker's house at City Hall, on the off-chance that it was in the name of another man, but no such luck.

Two things are for certain here: First, Walker is not "openly gay," contrary to conservative commentators' recent claims. Second, while it may be the case that his sexuality is an "open secret" in San Francisco, the local consensus is that it's simply none of your business.

http://www.salon.com/news/gay_marria...ghn_walker_gay

[Alleya]

It's also not exactly official that the judge is gay. At the moment, it's just a well spread rumour.

Well, yeah. That seems like the classic smear. Just saying in principle: if he were gay, etc

[Cantih]

if he were gay

That'd be okay.

[BerenTebogo]

Fox news is having a little poll. I wonder if they are getting the response they expected:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...tion-decision/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...dy_corrupt.php

Lots of sites linked directly to the poll with the intent of completely vote-bombing it in the opposite direction that FOX News intended it to go. Happens a lot. Lol online polling.

[BerenTebogo]

Also, funny shit here: http://www.catholicvoice.ie/

PETITION TO PROTECT MARRIAGE
Catholic Action MUST STOP Gay Lobby from 'Bullying' the Bill into Law

[Kuya]

These gays just won't stop bullying straight people.

[BerenTebogo]

Straight, Catholic, upper-middle class white families everywhere are being oppressed. It's time for another civil rights movement.

[zoobernut]

Sath I totally understand lolonlinepolls even though it was vote bombed it is still hilarious to me. Just for a different reason.

Another funny prop 8 related thing I just saw browsing around:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...eo.php?ref=fpb

[Talint]

Another funny prop 8 related thing I just saw browsing around:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...eo.php?ref=fpb

http://www.itadakiproject.com/timgunn2.jpg

[Alleya]

One of the commenters in there is probably on to it. Gays aren't as much of a wedge issue as they used to be, so they're going after immigrants instead.

[Kuya]

Oh my, aren't republicans cynical.

[Acturus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300999.html

Thought this was interesting. Full article is behind the spoiler tags, but

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision barring Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

Anyone a legal eagle that can comment on this? I didn't realize that appeals were limited to only those directly affected by the ruling. The article says that the named defendants (Governator and and Attny General Brown) can authorize the sponsors to appeal, but Walker isn't sure the sponsor's can do it on their own...

Spoiler: show

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal
By PAUL ELIAS and LISA LEFF
The Associated Press
Friday, August 13, 2010; 12:26 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's backers: He doubts they have the right to challenge his ruling that gay couples can begin marrying next week.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision barring Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed a request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.

They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal.

Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court.

Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.

Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof.

San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion.

"We allocate the decision-making authority over how to enforce and defend and prosecute the laws to the executive branch," Stewart said. "Do you want every Tom, Dick and Harry second-guessing what the attorney general does and challenging every ruling the attorney general chooses not to?"

The ban's backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California's strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measure proponents to defend their interests when state officials refuse to.

"We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal," said Jim Campbell, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8.

Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling.

"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

Walker's order clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California for the first time since 52 percent of the state's voters approved Proposition 8 nonetheless raised hopes among gay couples who flocked to government offices to await word that they soon will be able to exchange vows.

"We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state.

Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn't happen. The couple went to San Francisco City Hall early Thursday morning to fill out a marriage license application.

"It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," Rowe said.

---

Associated Press writers Trevor Hunnicutt in San Francisco and Shaya Tayefe Mohajer in Beverly Hills contributed to this report.

[zoobernut]

So basically the only people who could appeal his ruling and get Prop 8 reinstated would be a group of self hating gays who want to ruin the chances of marriage for everyone else? (Oh wait I guess I just described half the Republican party)

[Acturus]

So basically the only people who could appeal his ruling and get Prop 8 reinstated would be a group of self hating gays who want to ruin the chances of marriage for everyone else? (Oh wait I guess I just described half the Republican party)

No, sorry, I edited my post. The article spells it out a little farther.

I'm not good with this aspect of legality in the US. So I probably butchered my question.

[zoobernut]

Yeah now that I read the article I *think* I understand it a little bit better. But I am not going to comment on it until someone who is well versed in this type of legal language can do a rough translation.

[archibaldcrane]

Man, it would be amazing if the only people who could appeal this ruling is someone who can prove they are adversely affected by it.

I would love that shit.

[Drex]

I'm no legal expert, but judging by the article:

1) The case is a lawsuit against "the State of California" (the defendant)
2) The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs against the State of California (the lawsuit succeeded)
3) In California lawsuit cases, only the defendant can file for an appeal
4) Only "the State of California" can file for an appeal, NOT people who support the Proposition

it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.

They need the State of California (respresented by the Governor or the Attorney General) to appeal, and that's not likely to happen

[Correction]

Anyone a legal eagle that can comment on this? I didn't realize that appeals were limited to only those directly affected by the ruling. The article says that the named defendants (Governator and and Attny General Brown) can authorize the sponsors to appeal, but Walker isn't sure the sponsor's can do it on their own...

They could argue that under California law they have the right to have standing in place of the governor or attorney general, the trick is convincing the entire 9th circuit and supreme court of said standing. As much is pointed out in the article.

A few cases got mentioned on my morning radio shows on the way in to work (Arizonans for Official English vs Arizona and Karcher vs May) for precedent but I don't quite have time to read both opinions. Either way, the pro-prop 8 folks don't have very long to prove a case for legal standing in order to extend a stay of the ruling.

[Arnel]

I have a feeling this will go back and forth for a while. Decade plus I bet