No same sex marriages in California for now. So don't rush off to the County Clerk's Office this Thursday. The court has issued a ruling to have the appeal in this case heard quickly, with the hearing scheduled for the week of December 6th. The ruling is below...

I read an interesting theory on this issue today. Seems some right wingers are presenting the opinion that it might be better to let California have legal same sex marriage since an appeal would eventually take the issue to the Supreme Court. If the appeal had been denied and same sex marriage was legal in California, it might have been better for our opponents since the issue would not be taken to a national level nearly as fast. But it looks like that's exactly where this is headed now...

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. [7441574] (JS)

My headache is back. Not because the final court filing by Protect Marriage to keep the marriage stay in place until an appeal holds any water, but because it goes over the same landscape as before, with some new twists.

They start off by saying that it simply isn't true that proponents of traditional marriage are restricting that civil right simply out of disapproval. Their reason? Well, "there are millions of Americans who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians, but who draw the line at marriage". No kidding. So these millions of Americans want us to have "equal" rights, just not "totally equal" rights. How fair and American of them.

And of course, it's still all about the children. Who are these people who think that people are going to stop having children if gays can get married? Are you kidding me? I even heard a woman on a YouTube video say this weekend that if same sex marriage is allowed, then our species will "become extinct". Seriously? Children are a fairly hot commodity right now. Seems that's all anyone talks about anymore. I mean, even gays and lesbians are raising kids now. America is based on what's best for children. Censorship has done nothing but increase in recent years in order to protect the children from hearing a dirty word or seeing an accidental nipple in the middle of the barbaric game of football where men violently attack each other. And given that the world population never comes close to decreasing, but only increases, this is a pretty insane argument to start.

But I digress...kids do it to me every time...

So, according to Protect Marriage, since heterosexuals can produce children "often without forethought, through casual sex", then they must have legal, sanctioned marriage so that when the irresponsible father walks out on the irresponsible mother and she is forced to care for the child on her own, then the state steps in and helps out. I'll point out that they don't bring up the situation of a single straight father raising a child, because I guess that doesn't exist, or maybe they don't see their own misogyny when they imply that only a woman would be left alone by an irresponsible man and would need state assistance since apparently women can't take care of themselves alone like men can. Hmmm...

They point out a couple of places that straight people are subject to "accidental" children. Have they ever seen a condom? They also stick to their argument that infertile couples should be allowed to marry since in their opinion only one person in the couple is infertile and that protects the fertile member, always a man in their scenarios, more misogyny, from straying and fathering children out of wedlock. Yeah, because THAT never happens. Hold on, I'm getting a call from JOHN EDWARDS...

Easily the most insulting passage in the document is on the subject of whether the defendants are operating through the morally judgmental eyes of religion. They are not, they say, but they welcome those voices in their alliance. The religious and "moral" opinion on same sex marriage is just as useful to them as it is in matters of...get ready for this..."prostitution, gambling, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide, abortion funding, and other public policy issues that are inextricably entwined with moral values".

A decision is expected by the Ninth Circuit as early as Monday, August 16th.

Target just keeps getting deeper and deeper...This is just the beginning of what may backfire for a lot of corporations as a result of the January ruling by the Supreme Court which insidiously granted corporations the rights of citizens, allowing them to make unlimited donations in the political arena. This "ruling" by the Supreme Court is one of the greatest blunders of all time. It has the possibility of closing what small gap may have existed between corporate America and our government. If you're not aware of this tragedy, start to look into it. Examine how many companies control how much of our lives. While monopoly laws used to be something politicians enforced, there's little of that left. In the end, how many corporations will there be to control virtually all access and content to information, legislation and goods? Big Brother is not just a television show anymore...

Target is currently at the forefront of LGBT protest when it comes to corporations that financially support anti-equality candidates, but they will certainly be joined by a host of others as these new corporate rights are utilized to influence the very fabric of the country. But wait, democracy isn't quite dead, and there's only ONE THING corporations ultimately care about, and it isn't workers rights or what's best for the environment. It's money. So the people, as this video demonstrates, can still have an impact.

Target made a $150,000 donation to the campaign of an anti-gay candidate for Governor in Minnesota, Tom Emmer. Target says they donated to the campaign because Emmer is "pro-business". (Are there candidates anywhere that are "anti-business"?) Target also recently issued an apology and said they'd enter into discussions about making donations to pro-LGBT and workers candidates. It doesn't seem to be helping. Last week 250,000 people pledged to boycott the retail giant, and now one of their stores has been hit by a Flash Mob with a very creative and well written version of "People Are People" by Depeche Mode. Take a look... 

UPDATE: Target has announced it will not make counter donations in response to their support of Tom Emmers.

Shortly after the appeal in the Prop 8 case was filed by the proponents of the law, the plaintiffs filed their own brief with the Ninth Circuit Court, countering the appeal for a stay with their own take on the matter. They've stated that the defendants plea "does not come close to showing they have a strong chance of winning on appeal".

They go on to argue that...

• Proponents cannot possibly make a “strong showing” that they are likely to prevail in their appeal.

• There is significant question as to whether Proponents even have standing to pursue an appeal.

• Proponents have failed to establish that they will likely suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay.

• A stay will cause substantial irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.

• The public interest favors immediate enforcement of the judgment.

And it looks like the Ninth Circuit Court is paving the way to rule on the stay before Wednesday, August 18th, which is the date (at 5PM) that Judge Walker's stay expires, opening the door to legal same sex marriage in California. They've set a deadline of 9am on Monday, August 16th, for the defendants to respond.

Meanwhile, State Attorney General Jerry Brown has repeated his request that the legalization of same sex marriage begin "immediately" in California.

It's going to be an interesting week.

Well, the appeal has been filed in the Prop 8 case, and it's something to read. Facts? They don't need to refute the facts in Judge Walker's case, since they will do enough just by telling you how his opinion runs contradictory to so many court opinions before him. (Way before him). They offer quotes and cases all way back to the 1600's. How progressive.  

Their "dictionary" argument is embarrassing, to say the least. They claim that since dictionaries have long "understood" the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, then hey, that's what it is. Okay, forget about societies maturing and making some changes, let's just look at the fact that they're implying that dictionaries decide what words mean through some philosophical meditation on the matter, rather than just writing down what the word means. AT THE TIME!. Wow.

At one point they quote John Locke from, get ready, 1690, who explained that marriage was vital for, of course, the "continuation of the species". It's so strange to me that the opposition continues to argue this matter as if legal same sex marriage means that straight people have to stop having kids. Not to mention all the children that same sex couples will have, adopt and take care of. There will, be, uh, you know, probably, like, more kids if same sex marriage is legal, not less.

On the subject of infertile straight couples being allowed to marry and how that undermines their argument that marriage is about procreation? Well, you've got to read it for yourself...

And even where infertility is clear, usually only one spouse is infertile. In such cases marriage still furthers society’s interest in responsible pro-creation by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party, for that interest is served not only by increasing the likelihood that procreation occurs within stable family units, but also by decreasing the likelihood that it occurs outside of such units.

I'll wait while your head explodes.

Ready?

They go on to argue that since no biological reason for homosexuality has been found then of course, we aren't necessarily who we are. Riddled at great length, probably the bulk of the document, is that marriage is about children. They say that it's okay for gays to adopt children because they're taking care of children who'd been abandoned by their parents. The "threat" to traditional marriage, in this case, is on a few levels. Gays are using it to be "subversive", the "unknown" long term effects, the weakening of the meaning and importance of marriage to (again) have children. It's all the same argument, all baseless, all idiotic, but still, fascinating. It definitely shows how a lawyer's mind works, in twisting and manipulating irrelevant facts to make them seem relevant. They're basically saying that since Judge Walker didn't agree with judges of the past, nothing should change. You know, like they argued all civil rights cases in the past, "this is the way it is and that's all there is to it".