Breaking News: Perry Prop 8 Stay Granted By 9th Circuit

The order granting the Proponents/Appellants request for stay in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was just sent to me by the 9th Circuit. The docket text is as follows:

Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Well, I thought there was a very good chance that there would be an accelerated briefing and consideration if there was to be consideration on the merits. And there will be consideration on the merits, even if it is concurrent with consideration of the standing issue (here is a very good and detailed discussion of the standing issues and law).

This is a bit of a new wrinkle and, safe to say, gives more life to Proponents/Appellants than many people were giving them recently. And it appears there will be oral argument in San Francisco during the second week of December. Now the next question is what panel for the merits will the appeal be handed to – will it be Wardlaw, Fisher and Berzon – or will it be a new panel? Time will tell, and we should know that very soon. Exciting!

  1. phred says:

    Any chance they just granted the stay to give themselves time to do a proper review, given that the 9th Circuit is busy knockin’ back mai-tais while tossing leis at tiki torches?

    • Phoenix Woman says:

      It’s not quite the relative warp speed of the appeals process in Franken v. Coleman last year, but it’s still brisk as appeals processes go, or so it seems to an untutored wench like me. I’m guessing that the 9th is being hyper-cautious about making sure it doesn’t give anyone who might want to appeal anything that might help them do so.

      • phred says:

        I’m sorry our affianced lesbian and gay friends have to keep waiting for their due, but if it means the 9th has time to dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s to get this done right, then I’m ok with that. I really can’t imagine the 9th will reverse Walker, but we’ll have to wait and see I guess…

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Mai tais reminded me that I’ve had two pitchers of fruity drinks in my freezer for weeks. Time to work on what’s left of them. One’s a lemonade-orange-pineapple-rum concoction to which I just added some leftover strawberry puree. The other is a kind of faux frozen margarita.

        • phred says:

          You definitely have a better Monday evening lined up than I do — that sounds delicious : ) Enjoy one (or more ; ) on my behalf…

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen eCAHNomics:

      Yo Citizen…it’s tough ta be “excited” about anything that happens in our phony Federal court system…so why are people breathin heavy about this “accelerated” hearing…unless this gets ta the SCOTUS after Scalia or Thomas drop dead of chonic stupidity, I don’t see anything on the horizon that is worth gettin hopes up except that it should occupy some more media attention and coalesce more support for extendinghuman rights in this country.

      • demi says:

        bmaz said he was excited. Or did I misread?
        You’re just a little Black Rain Cloud. Forgive me for the Winnie the Pooh citation. I speak for myself. It makes me feel bad when someone comes around once in a while and feels they can speak for the tribe. Carry On. You will, I’m sure. You seem so confident. I’m very anxious for us. Lots of ways to see a complicated issue. If you’re willing to see others points of view.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen demi:

          First of all, dear heart, my remarks were directed to 2 commentors and not to the general unwashed audience of which you are such an upstanding representative…so, tuck your little handbag full of righteous outrage under your arm and take an airborn fornication at the lunar surface.

        • demi says:

          I took a bath today. And, I think and I contemplate and I seriously can’t comprehend why you think I have outrighteous outrage. But, that’s a side issue, isn’t it? You can think and do as you will. I’ve got dinner on the table and that’s the direction I’m heading. I’m not your enemy. I’m so sorry you feel that it’s that way.
          Chili cheeseburger? And tatertots? Citizen Norske. I’m sincerely going to think about our conversations.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen demi:

          Since you obviously didn’t get the jist of my response to your huffing and puffing, let me clarify: piss off!

  2. Jim White says:


    appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

    Verrrry interesting.

  3. MadDog says:

    Question: Is it normal in the granting/not granting of a stay to not give any rationale/reason for the decision?

    Seems to lead one to assume that the 3 Judges found some aspect of “injury” to the DIs would occur if the stay were not granted.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, it is interesting. Probably is a comment on exactly how much work clerks actually do for Federal judges – the order was pretty bare bones (not many clerks at the luau over in Honolulu).

      • MadDog says:

        …not many clerks at the luau over in Honolulu…

        That’s because their pigs don’t have wings. *g*

  4. Kelly Canfield says:

    Hmmm – my gut hunch was right. It’s still “No weddings for you Californicators” until the next hurdle is jumped.

    Then it will be the same again, presuming Appellants lose in the 9th; CA weddings stayed until SCOTUS.

    • MadDog says:

      Perhaps the rationale for this stay was a calculated decision by the 3 judges to delay any interference by the Supreme Court at this stage in order to buy time for the 9th itself to buttress the original decision by Judge Vaughn Walker.

      If these 3 judges had not granted the stay, then I assume the DIs would push for an en banc stay by the entire 9th, and if that too had failed, to immediately push on to the Supreme Court where they likely could expect a stay approval.

      • bmaz says:

        Naw they would have gone directly to the Supreme hot judge, Kennedy.

        realworld @14 – No, no idea yet for the merits panel.

      • Kelly Canfield says:

        I won’t pretend to know all the legal tactics and strategies, and I really don’t focus on those.

        What I do know from 30 years of gay rights activism is this; it’s like making water flow uphill. Whenever there is a course available to not flow upward, that’s how it’s going to work.

      • bmaz says:

        I am not sure you can get an en banc on an intermediate motion panel determination; pretty much only used on final decisions of merits panels. Not saying it is impossible (though it might technically be; not positive), but I sure as hell don’t recall ever seeing one.

  5. freepatriot says:

    whuuuttttt ???

    say it in english, poindexter

    this means the ban continues ???

    (duckin & runnin)

  6. realworld says:

    I thought everyone was dismissing the standing issue too quickly. Walker granted them standing in the trial. BTW: Anyone know who’s on the panel?

  7. Mary says:

    I think the stay grant was a nod to the fact that marriage is a pretty big deal. I think they’ll uphold Walker, but you do have to at least acknowledge that people who might get married or even go from out of state to CA to get married bc of the ruling are at risk of substantial damage if they 9th were to overturn, so safe course setting – without the panel doing anything to make it look like they’ve pre-decided the issues before getting the briefs – is to stay the effect.

  8. Teddy Partridge says:

    When do LGBT Americans take to the streets to demand our rights, denied again by these enrobed solons who are never affected by their own rulings, insulated as they are in their ivory towers of privilege and wealth?

    People need to fight for their rights. This legal claptrap is ridiculous. We aren’t going to be allowed to marry, EVER, unless we…. can’t say it here, can I?

    • AZ Matt says:

      If you are a teabagger this is where you would mention “2nd Admendment remedies”. Teddy, you are not one of those teabaggers.

    • phred says:

      Come visit us in MA Teddy. You’re welcome here : )

      I don’t blame you for being pissed, but I think Walker helped the cause a lot by his attention to detail. My hope is the 9th is following his lead. If they do a good and thorough job of it, and it gets to SCOTUS, we could see marriage available not just in CA but across the country. Short of that, it might toss out marriage amendments in 31 states as unconstitutional. My sincere hope is that the 9th makes it worth the wait…

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen Teddy Partridge:

      I feel your pain way out here in the heartland of democracy and the anus of progress Citizen but the truth is that the consolidation of the corporate security state in the first 4 years of the Bush administration with the attendant acceptance of “free speech zones” in an otherwise completely censored society have killed non-violent mass demonstrations and civil disobedience. Now if we could put a coalition of anti-war, gay rights, organized labor and Latino groups tagether we could really shake the fascist tree of oppression.

    • bmaz says:

      If you really want it buttoned down and to stick, they may have done you a favor. The more solid the process, the more solid the result. Remember, many were saying at the outset of the Perry attack that it was too early and powder should be kept dry. Perspective, perspective.

    • cregan says:

      I assume you say this out of understandable frustration, but I am sure the result at the end of this process will be positive.

      And when it is settled, it will be settled.

  9. Teddy Partridge says:

    Hope the judges enjoy their tax-payer funded getaway in Hawaii, after denying California couples their right to marry. Make no mistake, returning the stay was a denial of civil rights and will be forever seen as such.

    I mean, who’s harmed by lifting the stay? No one. But they didn’t.

    • Kelly Canfield says:

      That’s why I remain subdued, steely, and a bit harsh on this topic.
      Being used to it doesn’t make it any better.

      When there’s no harm, no zero sum game involved, watching your rights being batted around is really quite revolting.

    • bmaz says:

      My guess is they reasoned that the ability to make it stick in California/9th Circuit, not to mention hope for expansion to all, hinged at least partially on doing things this way. I do not disagree with them necessarily. Remember, Kennedy is right there with them; they may have some very legitimate belief that this was the cleanest and overall best way to proceed. Think with your head, not your heart. Walker, NDCA and the 9th have done right so far and have earned better than reactionary blowback like that.

  10. Larue says:

    Could someone explain to me in plain english what’s happening?

    Walker ruled AGAINST Prop 8. I think I have that much down cold.

    What’s a stay?

    What’s the next step?

    Is the 9th ruling on Walkers ruling at some point?

    Why or how would this ever make it to the SCOTUS?

    If it does, as SCOTUS is now, will Prop 8 be struck down, and will gay people get to marry and have marriage benefits or will it be only a civil ceremony?

    Thanks in advance.

    • OldCoastie says:

      the stay means that gays cannot marry in CA. We are waiting to see if the defendant-“interlopers” have standing. if they do not, this case will not go to the Supreme Court.

      the stay is bullshit. I’m sure it was made with very political reasons in mind, but it is pure awful bullshit… the H8ers have no case and yet here we are denied again…

      because tip-toeing around is always critical and denying us is endlessly always the 1st solution.

      • Larue says:

        Ok, that’s a start.

        Who are the interlopers? The defendants?

        Is that the Prop 8 Team?
        Or are the Prop 8 folks the prosecution?

        I don’t do legalize well, as you can tell.

        I know Prop 8 side FILED a motion to stay, I think I know that.

        Today’s info then means they GET a stay?


        And with a stay, they get a date with 9th Circuit to challenge Walker’s decision?

        Is that how it works?

        Or was this headed to 9th anyway?

        Who has to appeal to move this up to 9th, and then SCOTUS?

        I assume with Walker’s decision the bad guys appealed, or want to appeal?

        Or asked for a stay, to do . . what?

        • PJEvans says:

          Prop8 folks are the defendant-intervenors (the actual defendants being Ahnold and J Brown, who are not intending to join the appeal).

        • Larue says:

          Had to step away, thanks PJ!

          *G* Slowly making sense to me now.

          And I THOUGHT I knew what was going on . . .

          I was expecting the stay to be rejected I think . . .

        • OldCoastie says:

          the stay being rejected would have been the logical course. the stay being upheld is the political one.

        • Larue says:

          Ok, but it’s a panel of 3 that makes the next decision?

          How and when does the whole 9th come into play?

        • OldCoastie says:

          the whole 9th comes in to play if it is determined that the appellants (D-I’s) have standing and the appeal goes forward.

          I think. Maybe.

          I’m running out of brains apparently.

        • Larue says:

          Thanks, I like that take on it.

          So we’re all hoping that the panel does NOT accept stay and ‘standing’, and that shuts it down?

          Cuz if they shut it down, Hater’s CAN’T reach for the 9th?


          I gotta get some Merlot, I got the brain drain yer speakin of!!


      • Larue says:

        Wait, it’s sort of coming together maybe . .

        Prop 8 folks filed a stay, based on ‘standing’, which has been discussed as being ‘weak’.

        Now a panel will review the stay for ‘standing’?

        Then what?

        And bless ya, thanks for helping me out with this!

        • demi says:

          Hey! Larue. Some folks are musicians, and some are lawyercized. Thank God we’re not all the same. Still, I love your instinct to learn.

        • Larue says:

          Heh, it’s pure frikkin survival instince Demi!!

          See my Eggplant dish Sunday?

          Want me to relink it here?

        • demi says:

          Yes, please. I’m practicing a flute duet I’m doing on Sunday.
          I am who I am. No apologies. Unless, of course, they are warranted.

        • Larue says:

          Man, you and Kelly and that classical thang . . . and that’s no Simple Song!!!! . . . . my theory is so weak, it all amazes me how they composed it all. And still compose it, as they do.

          I play the grass and more by ear! For the most part, but I know chordal structures, song structures, and such. I can even play in Bf!!! *G* Lots of grassers disdain ya if ya can’t play in B or Bf.

          However, I’m FAIRLY well aware of the classics thru my time on NPR at a classical/college station. I got the pop of classic well ingrained vis a vis Christopher Parkening and of course the greatest orchestra’s on the planet on a daily basis for a few years.

          Here’s the Purple Passion Linky!

          Melanzana Parmigiana!

          And HUGE thanks to Rayne at her new job for helping me out with it all, it was ugly to start with!

          Sorry for the OT, bmaz.

        • demi says:

          Well, Bernstein’s dead. But, it’s a great song. I had to match the flute music to the score to make sure all the notes were correct, ’cause it’s So Dissonant. But, I’m on it.
          Sometimes I get off on dissonant. Y’know? Ha! Still, it make the heart soar.

        • demi says:

          Boo! Dude!
          PS, on edit…And sharing your version of “diminished” chords with all my musical friends. You’re just too much. In a good way, of course.

        • Larue says:


          It’s a bluegrass joke.

          How many bluegrass dawghouse players does it take to change a lightbulb?

          1. 3. 1. 3. 1. 3. 5! (in 4)

        • bobschacht says:

          I play the grass and more by ear! For the most part, but I know chordal structures, song structures, and such. I can even play in Bf!!! *G* Lots of grassers disdain ya if ya can’t play in B or Bf.

          Well, good for you! I just got back from a weekend of it, during which someone I was jamming with transposed the Orange Blossom Special from Bflat to A, which makes it a lot easier for bass-players like me to play because I can use open strings instead of hanging on that dreadful Bflat until my arm cramps. And then someone else transposed Midnight Moonlight so that the Bflat break wound up in C rather than Bflat, which also simplifies things for those of us who play an instrument that requires muscles instead of capos.

          Bob in AZ

        • OldCoastie says:

          the H8ers’ are appealing Walker’s ruling against Prop 8. the 9th has 2 things to determine on Dec. 6th… do the interlopers have standing (can they even make the appeal) and, if they do have standing, should Walker’s ruling stand? if they agree it should, the H8ers, if they are stupid, will take it to the Supremes, no doubt requiring another stay and another ride on the tilt-a-whirl.

          the piss off is that while this should go in our favor, the roller coaster is making many people ill and rather dizzy.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen OldCoastie:

          Do I understand you correctly that if the 9th Circuit does NOT grant standing, then the whole thing is over and the ruling will stand without support for Walker from the appelate court?

        • physicalist says:

          I believe that the Pro-8 side could and would appeal the standing issue to SCOTUS, but the more informed observers tend to think that SCOTUS wants to stay out of this and would probably not intervene on the standing issue.

        • Larue says:

          Wait, now I got another question on your comment.

          It’s not the 9th, it’s a panel, isn’t it? Of 3?

          That makes the NEXT decision (don’t ask me what decision that is, maybe an eval of the stay based on ‘standing’, which I understand from previe days recently, is WEAK as SHIT!).


          N here I thought I was getting it . . . lol

        • bmaz says:

          In that case, it (Walker’s decision) would stand on its own without support OR detraction from the 9th Circuit and there is a decent question as to whether the Supreme Court would even accept appeal to them (formally referred to as “certiorari”); thus leaving it as controlling authority only in California, guidance for the rest of the 9th Circuit and a published opinion that could be cited elsewhere, but that would not necessarily have any determinative weight.

          We shall see how it plays out, this is all why I term it “Exciting!”. This is simply breathtaking litigation, of the size and import as the Scopes trial, Brown v. Topeka and Griswold v. Connecticut – maybe Youngstown – simply huge historically. And you know how historical and important it is as you watch it, as opposed to only realizing years or decades down the line. That is all pretty spectacular. The law matters. Judicial philosophy and appointments matter. Elections matter. this is all why. You are watching history before your very eyes, and at a speed and public availability that is breathtaking for the Federal Court system. It really is that special.

        • demi says:

          It is exciting, and partially why I’ve been following this case so closely. Damn! I love it when I actually FEEL something. :)

        • Larue says:

          This is simply breathtaking litigation, of the size and import as the Scopes trial, Brown v. Topeka and Griswold v. Connecticut – maybe Youngstown – simply huge historically.

          Along with Roe v. Wade?

          All of which are under fire from one angle or another . . . given our SCOTUS makeup, and their fealty to fascists given Citizens v. United (would that ALSO not be groundbreaking and historical?).

          Thanks for all you do bmaz, sorry about all my q’s on your thread, sure appreciate all the ‘splanations.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen bmaz:

          Since you are a practitioner of the arcane art of “the law” and a VERY lucid thinker and writer, I will hold some small hope that your enthusiasm for this case is well placed and your statements as to the import of this ruling and the subsequent process do not turn out to be hyperbole.

          However, I will not be at all surprised if the finale to this opera ends with a barely disernable whimper.

        • Margaret says:

          Yeah but it’s the fact that every comment drips with appreciation for his own self worth and the condescension toward almost everybody else that gets me. My gosh, can’t that be dialed back a bit?

        • demi says:

          Me? I said I’d think about it. Yeah, you love me, I’m guessing you got what I was saying. Hopefully. Otherwise…I’m in big trouble.

        • demi says:

          Don’t waste anytime thinking about that. It’s an old grudge, I think. Too bad. Did you hear the flute duet at my #60. I was mistaken before when I told you it was a Tuba/flute duet. He’s singing. It’s so darn purty. And, playing music keeps me saner than worrying about why other people don’t like me. :) (Peg!!!) And, thank you.

        • Larue says:

          Demi, was that YOU playing either flute or piano in the clip? Or just an example of the song yer working on?

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen Margaret:

          I’m glad I could add to your diet of sanctimony but, of course, I wasn’t speakin’ to you so your take on my communication with bmaz is at best irrelevant.

        • Margaret says:

          And since your pomposity once again fails to impress me, I couldn’t care any less about your opinion.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen Margaret:

          Oh please, I wasn’t talkin to you so, if you have any real social skills or manners you will shut the fuck up about whatever I write to someone else…and as for “opinions”, I haven’t asked for yours nor do I give a shit.

        • Margaret says:

          This is more directed at the moderators: Why do we have to put up with this foul mouthed individual?

          I wasn’t talkin to you so, if you have any real social skills or manners you will shut the fuck up about whatever I write to someone else

          Seems like he gets away with a whole lot around here. Frankly it seems like a bit of a double standard when most of the rest of us have been called out for much less.

        • Margaret says:

          Since your pomposity and evident self congratulatory manner fail to impress me, must you resort to casting aspersions and foul language? The mods may let you get away with it but I’m going to call you out. You have no right nor justification to treat people like crap. Furthermore, somebody must have neglected to tell me that Jane gave this blog to you.

        • Larue says:

          Hoss, we’re all in the same corporate fascist foxhole, if this one don’t fly, I garentee we’re gonna start to rush the bastards when they least expect it.

          And besides, it’s all unsustainable anyway.

          It WILL collapse on the fascist bastards with or without us.


          I’ll bring the brandy, you bring the smoked fish and sausages for the foxhole.

        • bobschacht says:

          We shall see how it plays out, this is all why I term it “Exciting!”. This is simply breathtaking litigation, of the size and import as the Scopes trial, Brown v. Topeka and Griswold v. Connecticut – maybe Youngstown – simply huge historically.

          Yeah, but it’s exciting in the same way a game of chess can be exciting: There’s a lot of time between moves, and you have to keep in mind the strategy of the whole game, not just the immediate moment.

          For example, sometimes in Chess, you might have an opportunity to “check” the opponent’s King– which would seem like an exciting thing to do, and would want to go for the “quick kill.” But your opponent might have an easy escape, and the immediate result might be that your pieces are out of position, delaying your ability to stage a game-ending check-mate. So sometimes you pass up an early opportunity to attack your opponent’s King in order to position your pieces for a decisive assault.

          Does that help?

          Bob in AZ

        • bmaz says:

          Don’t know what will follow, but i honestly think that is a good analogy for what occurred today. I honestly think Walker might would have granted the stay so as to give the Supreme Court time and a clean case, but didn’t in order to force the 9th into working quickly. I said that when he first made his decision, and that is exactly what has transpired. From a procedural legal perspective, it makes a lot of sense (at least to me anyway).

        • Larue says:

          Thanks OC! ‘Preciate yours and all others patience with my q’s.

          As I understand it recently, the ‘standing’ for the stay is VERY shaky, and has little if no merit.

          Unless the panel’s rigged, they are most likely to reject ‘standing’ and stay?

          If so, do Haters THEN appeal it? Do they have GROUNDS to appeal it?

          I mean, if panel decllines stay on ‘standing’, what can the Haters do then?

          (besides take an airborne trip to the lunar surface) (Norske, Demi’s in our foxhole dude, I know she jerked yer chain, but hay, yer bigger n that and I know it)


  11. Cellar47 says:

    I’m especially sorry for NPH and David. Their twins are due in October, and they deserve legally married Daddies.

  12. papau says:

    My guess is that they are waiting for the November elections – power makes right and I guess they want to see who has the power.

    Or am I too cynical? /s

    Looking forward to December, only 4 months away, for the start of their review.

  13. rxbusa says:

    bmaz, can you explain the issue about Imperial County getting into the mix? How did that come about?

    Thanks for all your terrific explanations. And, eCAHN, I do think it is exciting! It’s like reading a legal potboiler, but with more comic relief by the irrational, inept Prop H8ers (although I do understand that the ultimate consequences aren’t funny at all).

    • rxbusa says:

      and may I add that as per bmaz @36 and 38, the reason I find it exciting (in the good way) is that I trust that the good guys are stepping carefully and building a solid case for a righteous outcome.

      • Larue says:

        As bmaz says, there was a lot thought about the present SCOTUS being a BAD time to contest Prop 8 in case it’s kicked up to the top (thought to have been a Hater Strategy from the start by some).

        I sure feel for Teddy and Kelly and all our LGBT brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, yadda yadda.

        As THEY have suggested, it’s dragging out hard again, for all of them.

        Now, if I can just get ahold of what this panel of 3 is about, and where it might go from there, I’ll be a lot more reassured of encouraging Teddy and Kelly to hang on . . . . they and all others just phreakin deserve the same seats on the bus we all have.

        Here’s hopin.

        • rxbusa says:

          Amen! for Teddy, Kelly, and all our LGBT friends whether they want to get married or not

          ***sound of glasses clinking***

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen Larue:

          I’m with you on the “hope” thing…and if bmaz is proven correct, this will be the first time since Roe V Wade that our federal court system has acted forcefully for the extention of constitutional rights in the face of overwhelming social opposition. What makes this case more important though is that a broad application of Walker’s ruling would serve as a political catalyst for a broader coalition of forces: gays, youth, labor, women, people of color and peace forces. Remember that in the end, our coutry and it’s culture are purely political and unless this court action can mobilze forces to coalesce at the polls it will be as ambiguous and ultimately as meaningless as Roe.

        • Larue says:

          My foxhole brother, truer and purer words were never spoken any better.

          Well done, hoss.

          I’m with ya on that comment.

          I’m TAHRED of having no hope, and being right on all my worst case scenerios past 40 years!

          N thanks, hoss, for the comment.

        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen Larue:

          Glad I could float a bit of hope yer way…and by the way, I’m thinkin’ that you didn’t really mean it when some time ago you said you don’t read anything, have you looked up “Giants in the Earth” by Ole Rolvaag?

        • Larue says:

          Haven’t read a book other than some old sci fi rags in the past 10 years or more.

          Nope, don’t know that one.

          Just don’t have the patience for book reading anymore.

          Nor the time . . . I’m sure I’m missing something, but, I get what I want and need in other mediums.

          I DO miss fishing, though, used to toss in a light spinner into lakes in my backpacking days.


        • NorskeFlamethrower says:

          Citizen Larue:

          Jest got back from 10 days in the north country on the Canadian border next to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area…fishin was terrible and the cost of climate change is bein paid from my fisheries…gotta go ‘cuz the passive agressive Kool Kid crowd is gettin too big on this thread.

        • Larue says:

          I read your stories of your trip with great delight hoss.

          They love ya, they really do. They’ve said so.

          As you’ve always said Norske, we’re all in the same foxhole.

          Tip yer hat, cut them some slack, serve up some goodness, they’ll be fine, and so will you.

          Not my fight, but hey, I love you all . . . in that FDL way (I’m gonna bust out bawlin like a baby).


          Be well, hoss, best to you and yours, hope all IS well.

      • bmaz says:

        Well, so far that has been the case beyond the wildest dreams imaginable. If anybody had said the case and ultimate issue could be in this good of a posture a year ago, they would have been called crazy. I said it was possible, and was called nuts even for that. But even I am floored at how well it has gone.

        Imperial County is a complicated part to explain fully. In a nutshell, they tried to intervene very late in the process, and Walker said 1) they were late and 2) they had nothing to add and their interests were already being protected. Now in Walker’s trial court, that was true. But the state defendants were nominally defending in the trial court; it does not look to be true in the appellate court, so they have a chance of being recognized there – we will see. If I had to guess, I just dunno. The standing issue is really more important that the ultimate uphold or reverse decision by the 9th. Just fascinating.

        • OldCoastie says:

          my question is… if Imperial County joins in, don’t they still have to live with the case the D-I’s presented? (in all its suckitude?)

        • PJEvans says:

          I don’t know about that, but I know that it’s a conservative, fairly poor, mostly rural county in the southeast corner of the state (borders with Mexico and Arizona). And I doubt that they’re in serious danger of being overrun by same-sex couples wanting to get married.

        • Larue says:

          Your grasp of this is astounding to us non legal birds what wanna fly.

          Your past experience must be deep and grand, as I’ve understood over the years.

          That comment really helped bring past and present into focus.

          Just, dragging out, yet again, my thanks.


  14. MikeDM says:

    IANAL, but if D-Is are given standing, doesn’t that open up a lot of opportunities for progressive challenges as well? [Unless, of course, the holy five decide that, like their Bush-Gore decision, it’s a one-time opportunity.]

      • bmaz says:

        I don’t know about that. I think there is a very good chance on the merits at the Supreme Court. I think Kennedy would uphold Walker and that is your 5-4 right there. Roberts himself might even could be had, he has a legacy to worry about you know. That is on the merits though, they could ignore the merits and bounce it on standing only. It would be cowardly, and every legal scholar worth his salt would know it, but that is possible.

        But you cannot win these things if you are afraid to play in the big leagues. If you are right, you go argue that as far as you can. This case is in a posture absolutely worth fighting with and for. That is all you can do; nothing is guaranteed, all you can ask for is the best shot possible. Walker’s decision in Perry is that in spades.

        • Larue says:

          Wow, that was grand from your insights.

          You can’t buy that kind of dialogue.


          Only one last question on that.

          How long does Kennedy have, and when would this case COME to SCOTUS?

          Will Sotomayer be a Kennedy on this issue?


        • bmaz says:

          On this issue, I think Sotomayor will be just fine as would Ginsburg, Breyer and, believe it or not, Kagan (she will be problematic on torture, privacy, war on terror and law and order issues though). So Kennedy is the cheese, and I really think he is accessible. No guarantees, but I think so.

          When it gets to SCOTUS depends on whether there is an en banc in 9th; if so those are notoriously slow.

  15. Kelly Canfield says:

    People who think there is “overwhelming social opposition” to the marriage equality issue before the courts in Perry, and who think there needs to be some “catalyst for a broader coalition of forces: gays, youth, labor, women, people of color and peace forces” are out of touch with what’s happening in reality.

    Polls clearly show Americans by plurality favor marriage equality, as well as eliminating DADT.

    More to the point, gay folks like me have always provided support for progressive aims, while the same hasn’t always been true in reverse.

    • Larue says:

      Good to see ya back in the jungle here.

      Your points are well taken.

      I’d like to think, as shit in general gets worse and worse, cuz it’s all unsustainable, we’ll SEE coalitions forming.

      Side by side, arm in arm, hand in hand.

      A real citizen’s united as it were.

      Cuz regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference, political affinity, gender, religious leaning (not in that order necessarily) we’re all being fucked.

      And I think, we’re all gonna have our fill of it at some point.

      And if it all collapses (it’s unsustainable, remember history) BEFORE we form this coalition of dreams, I gather we’ll fucking HAVE to join arm in arm after it all goes to hell.

      I could tend a field in the day, cook and make music at night, for a tribe.

      I’d need someone to make wine and whiskey, though, in that tribe.


    • OldCoastie says:

      “More to the point, gay folks like me have always provided support for progressive aims, while the same hasn’t always been true in reverse.” –

      mostly we get told to sit down, shut up and not now..

      • Larue says:

        No More?

        Never Again?

        In not now, when?

        Foxholes are crowding up, get yer reservations today!


        Here’s to hope, and here’s to bmaz for not shutting this down as I wandered all off topic at times.

        Time to move on, best to ALL of you, we hope on! Dammit!

        • OldCoastie says:

          no, that was a reference to working endlessly on political campaigns and when it comes time for support for the gay community, that support is too often withheld or half measures and political calculations making ineffective changes…

          part of the reason this decision is such a pisser is because this is the standard answer…

          just wait! we’ll getcha next time…

          too familiar.

  16. demi says:

    When a person hits the reply button, it comes back here as “in response to”. That means you are talking to that person. Maybe it’s just a kewl kid thing. Maybe not. But, that is how it is supposed to work here. I think.

  17. demi says:

    Well, it’s been mostly fun and definitely enlightening. So, thanks, BMAZ. PS – I hate the Huff Post headline that says Love On Hold. Hardly. Love will endure. Good night, everyone.

  18. rosalind says:

    Dear President Obama,

    That I missed seeing Rosanne Cash tonight on her book tour, that my pre-paid copy of her autobiography is sitting at the table unclaimed, that I sat in gridlocked traffic for over two hours with no avenue for escape north south east or west, to know it was all in service of your cocktail party with the rich folk to raise funds for the DCCC to elect more blue dogs that’ll vote against you and crow about it every Sunday morn, well, it just fills me with a feeling I can’t adequately express without ending up on the Secret Service watch list.

    Don’t come back any time soon, y’hear?

      • rosalind says:

        the comment section at the latimes is on fire. i can’t adequately explain how many miles got rat-f*&ked to accommodate his motorcade at rush hour. the secret service wouldn’t tell the police what roads would be shut, and the traffic reporters weren’t allowed to tell people what streets were closed for “security reason”. thousands of people were held hostage for hours for a fucking dinner party.

        • PJEvans says:

          All they really needed to say was that ‘the streets in such-and-such area would be blocked due to a private event’, and most people would have known to route around it. Also it would have let people know that they’d better not make tightly-scheduled plans, or given them a shot at rescheduling. (FWIW, my neighborhood has one street half-blocked for half a mile for construction, the closure done with neither advance notice to the locals or a clear ending date – and there’s about one alternate route around it.)

      • rosalind says:

        (hi bob! rosanne is cool indeed. wish i could’ve experienced the coolness in person, perhaps next time…)

  19. posaune says:

    Oh, and most importantly:

    Bmaz, I don’t think I have read a sequence of posts so meaningful as yours these past weeks on this case. Every post digs deeper and deeper to reveal to us the meaning and import of this case and the courage it takes to make real law. I am so grateful to your sharing of time, knowledge and integrity. This case is the diamond among the ashes. Blessings to you and yours.

  20. mamazboy says:

    Won’t it be easier to argue that the plaintiffs have standing if the loathsome Meg Whitman is elected governor in November? She (unlike Scharzenegger & Brown) has said she’ll defend Prop 8. Why couldn’t it be “expedited” to October? Seems suspicious to me, unless four months is typical of an “expedited” case.

  21. freepatriot says:

    high bmar

    I got some questions:

    if the 9th circuit panel rejects the Proponents/Appellants standing, Proponents/Appellants can appeal to the full circuit, and further appeal to the SCOTUS

    so the whole appeal could die for a lack of standing

    but if that happens, the ruling would only apply in California

    there would be no binding precedent established outside California unless the Proponents/Appellants have a right to appeal

    do I understakd that right

    cuz it seems to me that this would benefit the haters by limiting their loss, and essentially giving them a chance for a “Do Over” in another state (Arizona perhaps)

    • bmaz says:

      Under that scenario (there are others) then yes only binding on Calif. But it still would be precedent of some sort in the 9th and a citable decision in the rest of the US although not controlling.