Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  stay? away

CALIFORNIA GAYS: Prop 8 Stay Lifted. Marriages Can Resume*!

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today to remove the temporary stay on his Prop 8 ruling, which means same-sex couples in California can start getting married again. It’s 2008 all over again!

CAN GAYS GET MARRIED NOW? Yes, after August 18 when Walker’s ruling formally takes effect — and so long as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t intervene in the interim. In his original Prop 8 ruling, Walker said California officials cannot deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Then came the temporary stay, but that’s gone now.

ARE GAYS GETTING MARRIED NOW? Have you seen the lines? Los Angeles and San Francisco were among the places letting same-sex couples fill out paperwork in anticipation of the ruling. Now they get to formally submit it. But they’ll have to wait until Aug. 18 to secure their marriage licenses.

WHAT ABOUT YES ON 8′S APPEAL? That’s still moving forward to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will initially be reviewed by a small panel of judges before moving to an en banc review (though in the Ninth Circuit, given its size, that doesn’t include all judges on the circuit). But in the meantime, Walker’s initial ruling is the law of the land.

 

FROM THE RULING

The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest. Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek. None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to United States District Court For the Northern District of California enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

 

Meet Roger Hunt and Rod Wood, the first couple in line in San Francisco.

 


  • 76 Comments
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      Yeah!If I hadn’t married my guy a year ago, I would be there right now.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank Amsterdam, The Netherlands
      Frank Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      Congrat!

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon B
      Jon B

      Woohoo!!! (Although I hope lifting the stay doesn’t piss off Justice Kennedy, who seems to like staying opinions).

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EdWoody
      EdWoody

      Queerty actually has this news before CNN. They’re talking about sharks.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOProud Tea Party Homocon
      GOProud Tea Party Homocon

      Now you all owe thanks to Republicans for making it happen. Reagan and George H.W. Bush nominated the judge and Ted Olson, the Republican Solicitor General under George W. Bush won the case for you!

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miguel
      Miguel

      Actually, not lifted til the 18th. But still.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      I feel like this ought to be good news, but I’ll be honest… What happens if the case gets appealed and the 9th Circuit (or worse, the USSCt) overturns Vaughn’s ruling? What happens to all the couples who run out and get married today? Will those marriages become null and void? Will there be amnesty like the first time around? I hope we don’t find out the answer to that question…

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Swimmer - Chicago
      Swimmer - Chicago

      Awesome! Let my people Marry! What do you say now President Obama?

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miguel
      Miguel

      No one’s getting married today. The 18th at the earliest.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      Oh Queerty. In the rush to be first, you got it wrong. :(
      Nothing changes until the 18th. That is a world away, legally.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      [img]http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/EDG2701%20All%20Classes/gay_000306marriage.gif[/img]

      The Friday the 13th horror came a day early for the frightwing lunatics……….

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: lol idiot. just like the GOP is completely responsible for the civil rights acts, huh? conservative revisionism is really funny.

      opposing something tooth and nail, and then claim credit when it happens. haha

      Aug 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon:

      Republican Party today ? Republican Party twenty years ago. There is no way Bush Sr., or even Reagan would fit in with the band of lunatics currently running the Republicans or the Tea Party.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOProud Tea Party Homocon
      GOProud Tea Party Homocon

      @whatever: Yup, Civil Rights Acts (as well as repeal of Slavery) were championed by GOP and opposed by Southern Democrats. Did you know that Martin Luther King was Republican?

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • c
      c

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: did you go to college?

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gary B.
      Gary B.

      Man, I was really hoping marriage could commence TODAY! It’ll be a nail-biter until August 18th…

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      @DR

      I think everybody now realizes that the “it’s inevitable” crowd is 100% correct: gay marriage is an act that is protected by the Constitution. It will be found as such by the SCOTUS.

      If the fundies had any brains, they will let this stand and NOT appeal it. However, it seems they are convinced that their silly Prop 8 will be upheld by the Supreme Court, so I say let them go ahead and be proven wrong. Then, gay marriage will be legal in all States and we can get over this divisive issue.

      We’re everywhere- in the news, next door, at work, in Church, at the mall, in Congress, on TV, in books, in movies. The reason why we were discriminated against in the first place is because “WTF! Two guys kissing? That’s nasty!” America is over the shock of us existing. They have been since the early 90′s. It was only a matter of time. This is that “time”.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx
      REBELComx

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: Wait, wait, wait… Let’s dissect that plea for thanks for a moment.
      Reagan, who fucked over the gay community in general and the nations economy, who further empowered the Religious Right, and who totally fucked over not only the gay community but the entire world with his lack of action at the start of the AIDS crisis… who didn’t even SUCCEED in getting Walker on the bench because Walker was considered too conservative at the time = Not even sure why you mentioned Reagan in your comment.
      Can’t say much about Bush Sr… he did get the man on the bench. And Olson didn’t exactly do this ALONE. He had Democrat David Boise there too.
      The repeal of slavery was not a GOP/Democrat wedge issue. It was a north/south wedge issue. There were Dems and Republicans on both sides of the War. Abolition was championed by many Federalists from its very beginnings.
      Civil Rights Act of 1964, introduced BY JFK, Democrat. If you’re referring to the Civil Rights act of 1875, proposed by two Republicans, you’d be talking about Republicans who were nearly the opposite on social issues that the majority of today’s are, AFTER the GOP welcomed Cold War fever, McCarthyism, and the Religious Right to their bank account…er, table. Republicans who, as a party, not including your little Log Cabin, have run on anti-gay platforms in every election, on ever issue, for the last 20 years up until the last 2 or 3 years or so, and even then, their Anti-gay attitude has gotten more abominable.
      Yes…we owe the Republican party SO much thanks.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • slobone
      slobone

      It’s even possible that no appeal will take place. The original defendant was Schwarzenegger, and he’s already said he has no intention of repealing. So it all depends on whether the 9th Circuit rules that the Yes on 8 people have standing to file an appeal…

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: lol Republicans today looooove the 14th Amendment. That must be why they are tripping over themselves to get it repealed. Don’t tell me they want just the pesky birthright thing repealed, they want it all to go…due process, equal protection.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @PopSnap: 100% Co-Sign

      The frightwing lunatics will never stop their hate campaign against us. We are the only group left where they can spew their vile hatred without consequence. Not a single one of these lunatics can give a specific example of how a Gay marriage affects and or effects them in any negative way. They hate those whom are different from them, they hate Blacks, Hispanics, Asians et all. We are the only accepted punching bag left.

      I know from your previous posts that you recently got outta high school. The change from when I was in your space was not so very long ago, but attitutes have changed dramatically as you point out, we are everywhere and because of the change in the way info is diseminated people now see that…………

      These haters are on their last legs. As the ages of respondents to any survey decreases acceptance of all things Gay dramatically increases……….

      We simply have to wait until the old haters fcuk off and die (literally)……..

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      Today is a great day for our community!

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 17 · PopSnap wrote, “If the fundies had any brains, they will let this stand and NOT appeal it. However, it seems they are convinced that their silly Prop 8 will be upheld by the Supreme Court, so I say let them go ahead and be proven wrong.”

      They may not get that far. Olson and Boies have argued that the Prop 8 people do not have a right to appeal due to a lack of standing: the case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger and both Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown (the AG) have asked the stay to be lifted and do not want to appeal the decision. Walker cited a possible lack of standing as one of the reasons for ending the stay. I should note that the rules regarding standing are a bit complex and this case is worse in that regard than most.

      The defense (the pro Prop 8 side) had no answer to Olson’s and Boies’ claim in what they presented to Judge Walker. If they can’t provide a valid argument regarding that to the Ninth Circuit Court, the case could end right there – almost immediately.

      It’s a reasonable strategy for the “Yes on Eight” side: if you know you are going to lose, try to arrange it so that you can claim you lost on a “technicality”, after which you can whine that “justice was not served” and that a “biased, activist judge” made the decision. Personally I’d consider such tactics rather sleazy, but then I’m not a “political activist” concerned only with winning at all costs.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concernedcitizen
      concernedcitizen

      First and foremost let me put this out there I am a democrat actually closer to independent as I am not a lemming and prefer thinking for myself about issues. But the reality is GOProud Tea Party Homocon is correct about the GOP championing civil rights in the 60′s as well as MLK being a republican (BY LABEL)… But don’t pat yourself on the back yet…

      Because this is true only in a technicality, many political scholars are well attuned to the concept of party realignment which basically is that the roughly around the late 60′s and 70′s the republican party, and in consequence the democratic party, actually shifted in terms of demographics and ideology.
      Many white voters (who harbored racist feelings) left the republican party and in an attempt to attract rural voters the GOP shifted their position. As more of these new voters began shaping the positions of the GOP, it became more conservative. As a consequence from roughly around the mid to late 60′s the party realignment shift has been drastic.

      In the beginning of the GOP which was founded by abolitionists in the late 1850′s early 1860′s ( a combinination of former whigs and members of the “know nothing” party) the voter was typically a wealthy, well educated person and liberal (in terms of positions on the economy and slavery) typically who lived in large cities such as Chicago, Springfield, New York, Philadelphia, ect. however by the late 1960′s the opposite was true, the average GOP by then was more rural less educated more likely to harbor antipathy for other racial groups and more conservative.

      Basically the GOP of yesteryear or even as late as the 1980′s is drastically different than the GOP of today (as well as the Democratic Party). We know this to be true when you look at the average voter who self-identifies with a particular party positions and demographics. Party labels aren’t necessarily consistent throughout history, its actually a better indicator to consider liberal vs conservative. The early GOP was considered “radical or liberal” while jeffersonian democrats as they were referred to then were considered more conservative favoring more status quo positions.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concernedcitizen
      concernedcitizen

      @concernedcitizen: Oh also meant to add that women’s rights advocates “suffragists” such as Frederick Douglass and Mary Livemore, Lucy Stone all were at their time members of the GOP (as well as many northern living african americans). The famous Seneca Falls Convention was held at the Republican State Convention. But these individuals were the liberals of their day (favoring legislative changes in support of civil rights and women’s rights) while the Democrats were more often considered conservative and against these positions.

      The point is comparing the past GOP to the current or the Democratic Party of today to the old is like comparing apples to oranges. Different policies different demographics, different ideology!

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John (CA)
      John (CA)

      The Republican Party has been cashing in its Civil War accomplishments for, what, 150 years now?

      Now that you have become the party of racists, homophobes, and flat earth society members – you don’t get to use the Emancipation Proclamation as a rhetorical weapon anymore.

      It is time to retire the old girl already.

      And to imply that black folk should be beholden to the white Republican master who “gave” them their freedom is ridiculous anyhow. The GOP – and by extension white men in general – don’t seem to understand how insulting that notion is. It is not your place to grant people their humanity. Human dignity is the birthright of every single person. Lincoln, reluctantly, gave the slaves what was rightfully theirs.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concernedcitizen
      concernedcitizen

      @concernedcitizen: sorry quick fact check Seneca Falls didn’t occur at RNC state convention as it happened prior to the party founding but their subsequent meetings were held at Republican State Conventions ect. Sorry for misinformation

      Aug 12, 2010 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      @concernedcitizen: The Civil Rights Acts was more accurately a trimph of liberalism over the South and over conservatism.

      The most common thread marking opposition to the CRA was being a southerner congressman/senator rather than being a Democrat. And yes, parties re-align, change platforms and outlook many times over the course of decades. The Rupblican Party of 1866 bears little resemblance the Republican party of today and same with the Democratic party.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concernedcitizen
      concernedcitizen

      @whatever: yes, we’re saying the same things. No disagreement here.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concernedcitizen
      concernedcitizen

      @whatever: and to your earlier comment on CRA in the third paragraph I stated “its actually a better indicator to consider liberal vs conservative.”… Southerner’s (particularly rural) were more likely to be conservative and consequently democrats.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOProud Tea Party Homocon
      GOProud Tea Party Homocon

      So now you all admit that GOP historically championed Civil Rights?

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adam
      adam

      The stay was already scheduled to expire then…. It’s a little humorous that people find this to be some huge news.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • I Do = you don't
      I Do = you don't

      LOL only a week away until gay couples can get hitched and start having abc sex just like the straight marrieds.

      abc sex = anniversary, birthdays and Christmas.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ConcernedCitizen
      ConcernedCitizen

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: In name only.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: what part of no are you not getting sweetie?

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cornered in Cali
      cornered in Cali

      LOL at all my moneyed gay friends now getting pressured by their jobless younger longterm live-in bfs to tie the knot.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOProud Tea Party Homocon
      GOProud Tea Party Homocon

      @Joe: I am just trolling you libtards. It is so much fun to watch how ridiculous and hateful you come across in your denial of basic facts.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ConcernedCitizen
      ConcernedCitizen

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: If that’s what helps you sleep at night knowing that your party’s last accomplishments occurred well over 40 years ago and under vastly different circumstances then by all means appease your conscious.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      THANK YOU OBAMA FOR ALL THAT YOU’VE… SAT BACK AND WATCHED DONE!

      Judges in 2 different states – striking down DOMA and Proposition H8.

      Meanwhile, Obama defends DOMA and studies DADT.

      We need a new President. Obama – step aside please. You are a “Constitutional Law” professor? You get an F.

      Aug 12, 2010 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shaun
      Shaun

      @CJ: Obama is politician. Politicians don’t do what’s right but what they perceive that the majority of the people want. That’s democracy for you.
      On the other hand, judges do what’s right, or they are supposed to at least.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 7:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      @PopSnap:

      While I agree that every year the polls get better for GLBT equality, these are not the people necessarily sitting on the courts, and these are the same people who, when push came to shove, voted for Prop 8.

      Additionally, I certainly do not trust the United States Supreme Court right now; ruling that the state cannot discriminate in the criminalization of consensual sexual encounters between adults of the same sex is not the same as ruling that the right to marry a person of the same sex is a fundamental right.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 8:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      @REBELComx:

      Crud, have to finish my post (I hate getting get off)

      Some of those same people, when push came to shove, were more than happy to vote from Prop 8 (and other amendments like it around the country). Statistically speaking, people are more inclined to err on the side of caution when participating in a poll because they do not believe they are homophobes or bigots (nor should they be made to), but when they vote, it can be a different story.

      I wouldn’t be too keen on the Supreme Court of the US handing down a favorable decision. The Lawrence ruling, regarding discriminatory practices in the criminalization of sexual activity among consenting adults, is not the same as deciding whether marriage between same-sex couples is a fundamental right. Loving only related to straight folks. Romer could apply, but that would probably be a limited holding and apply to CA only, not the entire country.

      Also, we have Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to deal with, and just because Scalia threw out an off-the-cuff comment about SSM in the Lawrence decision doesn’t mean he’ll vote for it. That leaves Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy is a swing vote, and it’s possible he could keep the holding narrow enough to only apply to California.

      My concerns may be moot if no one has standing to chalenge the case on appeal, but I don’t like the idea of opening couples up to a repeat of “gay marriage ok” and then “gay marriage not ok” eighteen months later. Folks have waited this long, will it really matter to wait until the appeal period runs its course? Gays who marry in this grace period, should something not go the way California officials clearly want it to go, may not be as lucky as the 18K couples who married during the time SSM was legal in California.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 9:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      It’s a huge victory.

      The decision is tightly written and largely based on facts. That should make it harder for the Supremes to overturn.

      Now, on to ENDA.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GOProud Tea Party Homocon
      GOProud Tea Party Homocon

      @cornered in Cali: This is so true, it is not funny!

      Aug 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • youcanthandlethetruth
      youcanthandlethetruth

      It’s comical to suggest that an unmarried, homosexual Judge who has never had any children can rule on a case involving marriage, parenthood and the redefinition of marriage for homosexuals.

      I wonder what the reaction from the homosexuals would have been had the Judge been a practising Baptist minister?

      Hopefully the Ninth Circuit will overrule homosexual Judge Walker and his ludicrous decision will be stayed indefinitely so that this egregious miscarriage of justice can be overturned and power can be restored to We The People.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • patrick
      patrick

      @youcanthandlethetruth: What’s comical is you trolling gay sites.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: I don’t think anyone can argue that human rights should have an affiliation with one certain party. However, when you shut down all those people that actively campaign and are elected on a platform of surpressing our rights then I’ll give some kudos to the Republican Party.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      @Swimmer – Chicago: My guess is that he will say congratulations on the win since he has always stated that it was up to the courts or the legislature to allow gay marriage. He is the president not Superwoman…his real job it so veto legislation and lead the armed forces. He also gets to appoint USSC justices to vacancies.

      Obama isn’t the one that makes laws. Some people need to really learn what seperation of power means.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Regarding the guy who said “It’s a huge victory,” don’t count your victories before they hatch.

      One possibility raised by legal experts is that the case could be thrown back to Judge Walker to be retried on the grounds that the “Yes on Eight” defendants had no standing to be in the case at all, in which case the outcome would be the same (the replay would be the plaintiff’s witnesses only with no cross examination as the only entity with standing, the state of California, didn’t want to spend any effort contesting the case). Hopefully we won’t go through such a meaningless exercise, but you never know.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      @PopSnap: Actually, chances are if this is overturned in the Court of Appeals the USSC will chose not to hear it. Hell, there is an equal chance the USSC will not chose to hear it even if it isn’t overturned in the Court of Appeals. The USSC still has the right to pick and chose every single case it hears. If they chose not to hear it and its not overturned on appeal then it means that Californian gays/lesbians will have the right to marry. If the USSC choses to hear it and uphold it then it means that gays and lesbians across the entire country have the right to marry (superceding any and all state laws). The only question that will remain then is if the National Guard will have to be dispatched to city halls to force them to grant marriage licences.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      @CJ: Yes, because McCain/Palin was such a better choice. In a political campaign you pick the lesser of two evils not the best candidate.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: This from everyones least favorite BINALIJPTB1O – “But I’m not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one online.”

      Aug 13, 2010 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cornered in Cali
      cornered in Cali [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @GOProud Tea Party Homocon: The tremors in Southern California aren’t earthquakes. It’s my friends doing the sidestep and shaking in their boots!

      Aug 13, 2010 at 8:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 52 · Bill Perdue once again rants and resorts to a childish ad hominem argument because he doesn’t like the facts – a lot of things can still go wrong in spite of Judge Walker’s ruling. We can be grateful for it, but it is premature to declare victory.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: ‘B’ wants a defeat.

      It’s ever so much easier to stay closeted if you don’t have to argue with you straight ‘friends’ about those pushy gays and lesbians.

      So he pretends to be a lawyer and says that this is not a big victory.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 9:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · DR, “I wouldn’t be too keen on the Supreme Court of the US handing down a favorable decision.” One of the things Judge Walker did in his ruling was to cite Justice Kennedy’s opinions a fair bit, and he is kind of a “swing vote” – there are many 4/5 decisions given the balance on the current Supreme Court.

      It sounds risky, but on the other hand, both Olson and Boies have had a lot of experience arguing before the Supreme Court. Let’s hope for the best.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 9:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 55 · Bill Perdue lies some more by saying, “@B: ‘B’ wants a defeat.”

      Rather, unlike Bill Perdue, I actually know something. I’ll refer interested readers to http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/do-prop-8-proponents-have-standing-to.html which has summary of the standing issue. It’s actually rather complex.

      BTW, I had a short discussion this morning with a gentleman who is one of the top lawyers in California, albeit in a different area than the one covered by Judge Walker’s decision, and he did could not give a definitive opinion (but had not paid any attention to the case either so any opinion would have to be from first principles). The rules regarding standing simply cannot be reduced to sound bytes.

      As to Bill Perdue’s “pretends to be a lawyer” lie, I challenge him to provide a URL to any article in which I claimed to either be a lawyer or to not be a lawyer. What’s going on is that Perdue once again jumped to conclusions and is trying his usual string of ad hominem arguments to cover up his own incompetence.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 10:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      ‘B’, quit sniveling. Divorce lawyers are not top anything. They’re parasites. You know the type.

      You didn’t backtrack far enough or fast enough in 56 to cover your ass. You’re a defeatist and defender of closet cases like Rekers and Ashburn.

      It was a huge victory.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 58, Bill Perdue is following his usual pattern of doing everything the can to turn a thread into his personal vendetta.

      He’s lying – whether this ruling is a “huge victory” or an interesting footnote has yet to be determined. We can be hopeful, but there is simply too much that can still go wrong.
      And of course, Perdue’s claims of “backtracking” are a figment of his imagination. And note after making a claim, he punted on trying to provide a URL – that’s because he lied and knows he can’t back up his statement.

      It really doesn’t hurt to wait a few days for a 9th Circuit Court opinion on whether the stay will be ended (and on whether the “Yes on Eight” side has the legal standing required to appeal) before gloating.

      Here’s a somewhat humorous story illustrating why:

      There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

      “Maybe,” the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

      “Maybe,” replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. “Maybe,” answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. “Maybe,” said the farmer.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 11:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Oh, also in No 58, Bill Perdue wrote, “Divorce lawyers are not top anything.” … never said the attorney in question was a “divorce lawyer” and in fact he isn’t. Perhaps Perdue can explain why he always jumps to conclusions and tries to put words in people’s mouths. Then he wonders why I think he is a pathological liar.

      Aug 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Code Pink
      Code Pink

      People don’t be fooled. B & Bill Perdue are the SAME person. Just look at the style of writing and wording. And notice how when one showes up the other follows. He started the conversation with himself on #49 as B. He hijacks these threads by going back and forth with himself. So F@*KING ANNOYING…

      Aug 14, 2010 at 5:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Code Pink is as delusional as ‘B’. who defends everything religious and rightwing and is predicting defeat.

      Aug 14, 2010 at 7:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 60 · Code Pink wrote, “People don’t be fooled. B & Bill Perdue are the SAME person.” You guessed incorrectly. You’ll see major differences in opinions between the two of us, with all the personal attacks and lies coming from Bill Perdue (See No 61 for the latest example): I’ve been merely pointing out that he is lying as a statement of fact in responses to statements in which he did just that.

      For the current thread, go back to No. 49, where I merely wrote, ‘Regarding the guy who said “It’s a huge victory,” don’t count your victories before they hatch.’ (followed by an example of how things could go wrong temporarily). This was hardly a personal attack – I was merely pointing out that we aren’t out of the woods yet. Since Perdue’s ego is invested in his statement that “It’s a huge victory” regardless of what the facts eventually prove to be (at this point it is premature to say), he reverted to form and started one of his usual unending strings of personal attacks. I’m merely noting when he is lying, which he does with abandon, and even when documented, he simply ignores it and lies some more.

      People who behave that way are a real problem – they can cause more trouble internally than Maggie Gallagher and her organization do with precisely that goal in mind.

      Aug 14, 2010 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Code Pink: ‘B’ continues his campaign of defending the right, predicting defeat and then changing his story when challenged, a behavior pattern characteristic of ambulance chasers. Followed by playing the victim.

      Code Pink is a troll whose only comment is the one you see above. He’s obsessing and delusional.

      Aug 14, 2010 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Code Pink
      Code Pink

      @ Bill Perdue: I don’t give a danm about the campaign of you and your alias B.

      And the only one who’s “obsessing” here is you. Who troll under different names. Bill Perdue/B/Queer Supremist.Which is very obvious. Going back and forth with yourself like a lunatic.

      Your little charade has been exposed. And many are catching on.
      Yes, so get pissed about that.

      Aug 15, 2010 at 5:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @B: I’m an attorney, I understand that. I also understand, as cited in my post, the myriad number of things the court could end up holding. If it goes the Romer route, then only California will see any real impact. If it goes the Loving route or the Lawrence route, then there are more far-reaching implications. My only concern, as I keep saying, is that I don’t think we need to put SSM in an awkward position pending the appeal period tolling.

      Aug 15, 2010 at 8:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Code Pink: Pissed? More like bemused at your paranoia and trolling.

      Aug 15, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Soon, more whining about vendettas, ‘B’ code name for political criticism.

      Aug 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No 65, DR wrote, “My only concern, as I keep saying, is that I don’t think we need to put SSM in an awkward position pending the appeal period tolling.”

      While I can understand your concerns, its worth noting that Olson and Boies are very good and must have carefully analyzed all possible outcomes while preparing for the case. If the stay is lifted, there is a high probability that marriages performed during an appeal would remain valid ( http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/judge-walker%E2%80%99s-ruling-extending-stay-until-august-18%E2%80%94-what-does-it-mean-and-what-happens-next/ ) – it differs from the marriages performed in San Francisco before the California Supreme Court ruling allowing them as federal judges can lawfully suspend Proposition Eight.

      BTW, Olson and Boies are arguing that their opponents have no right to appeal, which, if upheld, would keep the Supreme Court out of the decision. While the decision would then not serve as a precedent elsewhere, it would probably be influential.

      Aug 16, 2010 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 67, Bill Perdue is trying to hide the fact what he is engaged in is not “political criticism”.

      See http://www.queerty.com/did-olson-boies-just-secure-the-death-of-prop-8-20100617/#comment-315566 (Comment No 18) with his additional “contributions” to that thread being baseless personal attacks (Comment Numbers 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 and 118 so far). Many are simply repeats or near repeats of the same garbage – a long list of misleading/false statements cut and pasted from his file.

      Aug 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 64 · Code Pink made some invalid assumptions about who is who. Look at the stylistic differences in the posts. What’s going on is that one individual repetitively prints a series of lies about others (including lies about you) and some of the others simply point out that this individual is lying rather than letting him get away with it.

      Aug 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      ^^^^ The whining I predicted. And the lies. No wonder our resident professional victim gets responses like this to his outragerous anti-GLBT lies”

      No. 2 · WalkderDC
      The point is, Rekers is claiming Jovani advertised as a travel companion. Yet not only has he not produced any other ad, nor the website where he found him. But Jovanni has said that he only advertised on Rentboy.

      B you have now been on 4 threads defending Rekers. What is your agenda?

      3 0

      Posted: May 15, 2010 at 10:03 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 3 · romeo
      Yeah, B, I’m for freedom of speech and all, but you really need to stfu. Rekers is indefensible.

      4 1

      Posted: May 15, 2010 at 11:44 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 4 · schlukitz
      @WalkderDC:

      “B you have now been on 4 threads defending Rekers. What is your agenda?”

      @romeo:

      Yeah, B, I’m for freedom of speech and all, but you really need to stfu.

      Gentlemen, B sees himself as a self-appointed moderator whose agenda is to make everyone who posts on these threads, including Queerty.com look dumb, while attempting but failing to make himself look smart, flag posters he disagrees with and trying to get folks like 1EqualityUSA and myself banned from this site.

      I have no doubt that B is the person responsible for every post that 1EqualityUSA and I make being moderated for the past several months now.

      I have also noticed that many of the commentators with whom we are familiar no longer post on these threads. I can readily see why.

      B apparently believes that he alone is entitled to freedom of speech but that is all other posters on this site that should stfu. For that reason both 1EqualityUSA and I rarely post on Queerty anymore.

      B takes all the fun out of it.

      1 0

      Posted: May 15, 2010 at 7:43 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]

      Posted: May 15, 2010 at 11:49 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 6 · Bill Perdue
      If it’s rightwing, if it defends bigotry and religion, if it denigrates the LGBT communities – then B is for it.

      1 2

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 12:41 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 7 · B
      No. 5 · Bill Perdue lied again. I have no respect whatsoever for Bill Perdue due to his habit of lying about anyone he disagrees with. He’s really as bad as Rekers.

      1 2

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 12:45 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 8 · Bill Perdue
      @B: There are dozens of us who say the same thing and we’re pleased not to have your respect.

      If you liked us it’d be very damaging to our reputations.

      1 2

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 12:48 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 9 · B
      No. 7 · Bill Perdue wrote, “There are dozens of us who say the same thing”. You are lying again. There are a handful of people who behave as you do, and you are perhaps the worst.

      People can disagree, but you try to turn every disagreement into a personal attack that consists of nothing but one lie after another. Quite frankly, you need professional help. Your behavior borders on being pathological.

      1 2

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 12:52 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 10 · Bill Perdue
      @B: It’s simply an accurate description. If you see it as damaging then the solution is to modify your behavior.

      I suspect you can’t so people will continue to oppose you. Deal with it and stop trying to cut off discussion with lies about our motives.

      3 1

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 1:00 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 11 · B
      In No 9 Bill Perdue lied again by saying “I’s simply an accurate description.” Trying to imitate Hilter with the “big lie”
      technique? Perdue, you really are slime.

      0 2

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 1:18 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 12 · Bill Perdue
      @B: Oh, now I’ve gone and upset you. Awful me.

      Get used to it.

      As ye sow so shall you reap.

      0 0

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 1:21 am · @Reply · [Flag?]

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 3:05 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 14 · WalkderDC
      No B

      You aren’t Just trying for accuracy. What you are doing is inventing scenarios to pretend that he isn’t lying. First you attack the reporters for not contacting him, then when it was pointed out to you in another post that he was contacted you immediately scramble and say “But maybe he didn’t understand what they were talking about!”

      So you are desperately trying to find any reason as to why he is somehow the victim here, and I am curious as to why.

      2 0

      Posted: May 16, 2010 at 6:35 am · @Reply · [Flag?]

      No. 17 · Bill Perdue
      @schlukitz: Glad to see you comment got uncensored. ‘B’, pro bono lawyer for racism and any self loathing scum that comes down the pike must not like you much.

      0 0

      Posted: Jun 15, 2010 at 6:12 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 18 · Jesse Helms
      George Alan Rekers should be prosecuted for underpaying his travel companion.

      0 1

      Posted: Jun 15, 2010 at 7:00 am · @Reply · [Flag?]
      No. 19 · schlukitz
      @Bill Perdue:

      Truth be known, I never got the impression that ‘B’had any special love for me (or anyone else on these threads, for that matter), from day one.

      And that’s what I get for having the unmitigated gall to disagree with “B’. Who do I think I am? ;P

      What I find particularly noteworthy, Bill, is the fact that ‘B’ has never once denied that he might have had anything to do with getting OneEquality1 and my comments moderated on this forum.

      Which would seem to prove the old adage that it’s not always what one says that speaks reams about the person who is doing the attacking, but rather what they don’t say.

      And that is what one really should pay mind to.

      1 0

      Posted: Jun 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm”

      To read what turned everyone off about be visit: http://www.queerty.com/george-alan-rekers-was-ready-to-give-jo-vanni-roman-5-stars-on-yelp-20100514/

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 71 · Bill Perdue is continuing his discredited cyberstalking ways (it seems he maintains files of random quotes, many his own, which he uses out of context) in what he thinks is a believable hit piece.

      See http://www.queerty.com/did-olson-boies-just-secure-the-death-of-prop-8-20100617/#comment-315566 (Comment No 18) with his additional “contributions” to that thread being baseless personal attacks (Comment Numbers 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 and 118 so far). Many are simply repeats or near repeats of the same garbage – a long list of misleading/false statements cut and pasted from his file.

      Bill Perdue has been posting these lies ever since he saw my reply ( http://www.queerty.com/obama-will-let-some-gay-federal-workers-share-gym-memberships-20100603/#comment-309977 ) to his comment in http://www.queerty.com/obama-will-let-some-gay-federal-workers-share-gym-memberships-20100603/#comment-309753 where he blames our first African American president for Proposition Eight’s passage even though President Obama stated his opposition to Proposition Eight during the campaign but otherwise ignored it

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      ‘B’ continues to defend his racism and his pimping for rightwingers and self-loathers. It’s why he gets shown the door in thread after thread.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 73, Bill Perdue shamelessly continues his Goebbels-like lying as part of his ongoing vendetta.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 2:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      ‘B’ continues to defend his racism and his pimping for rightwingers and self-loathers. It’s why he gets shown the door in time after time.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.