1. Gary says

    Justice Kennard is equating same-sex marriage with the death penalty! She is claiming that solely a strict majority of voters entitles the elimination in equality for marriage solely by a one-vote majority. She is attempting to tie this as a revision, not an amendment, which requires 2/3 of public vote, after passage by the Legislature by the same percentage.

  2. Eric says

    I’m not sure who the female judge with the thick accent on the panel is but she certainly cut Marshall’s argument short and it seemed awfully strategic by way of simply defending her former position on the last ruling. I don’t believe that in this type of hearing, that the judges should be allowed to interrupt so wholly while an argument is being presented. While the presented information was being construed as political, the judge’s interruption was exactly that and extremely rude.

  3. Sargon Bighorn says

    Too bad the media viewers all require a down load, and many are not working due to the large number of people wanting to watch. I’ve been trying for an hour to see this and have not been successful. One would think this historic event would be better distributed. Oh well.

  4. Christian Canterbury says

    Whoever this female russian sounding judge is, is AWFUL. She keeps asking the lawyers questions, interrupts them as they try to answer, then INTERRUPTS THEM AGAIN.
    She has a voice that sounds inquisitive, but then DOESN’T LISTEN TO ARGUMENTS…interrupts AGAIN…then…time up!

  5. John in CA says

    Justice Kennard is equating same-sex marriage with the death penalty!

    Not necessarily a good sign. It suggests she’s preoccupied with her own political survival. Kennard is surely aware that a California Supreme Court ruling banning the death penalty was overturned by the voters a few decades ago. She’s also surely aware that one of her predecessors, Chief Justice Rose Bird, was recalled for writing that anti death penalty decision.

  6. Zeeshan says

    I think that woman is Justice Kennard. She was with the majority in the in re: to marriage cases, but was also the only one to vote against hearing this current case.

  7. Mike says

    I’m just saying…start collecting signatures to get the issue back on the ballot. This does not sound good.

  8. Patrick says

    This is the way appellate arguments are conducted in state and federal courts all over the country. If we want to secure our rights by giving uninterrupted speeches, we should win them in legislatures and political campaigns. If you go to court, this is what you get. I’d be careful about belittling people for having accents and calling women bitches because you suspect they disagree with you.

  9. eric k says

    I agree (it’s called an argument after all), but she could have enough respect to let someone finish introducing themselves before she interrupts. Her accent is not an issue for me it’s her long-winded, inability to concisely articulate a question that leaves me wondering how this person has a say in how I live my life.

  10. Daya says

    I was listening to NPR on my way to work this morning. It heard a report on people who financially supported YES ON PROP 8. They were complaining that they were being harassed by gay activists for supporting YES on Prop 8. Well good. Now they have gotten a small taste of what it is like to be gay. They may receive harassment for about two weeks and then people will forget them.
    Need I write more? I do not feel sorry for people. If you stand for something be prepared to be up against people who disagree — some people who support Prop 8
    have not a clue of what it is like to be targeted every day just because you are different.

  11. Christian Canterbury says

    Nobody is belittling anybody for having an accent.
    We just don’t know her name. It’s Justice Kennard. She is the most long winded and rude of all these people. Although at this point they are ALL pounding the stuttering rep.
    This all sounds like they have already made up their mind. I’m gonna go get drunk.

  12. Gregus says

    Unfortunately we’re not winning this one in any way. Krueger was just horrible, stumbling and inarticulate. Even more highlighted as he’s followed by Ken Starr.

    Prop 8 is going to stand, the question is whether the existing marriages will still be valid.

    Unfortunately we need to move on, and pursue a different strategy.

  13. John in CA says

    We’re not belitting for her (Kennard) for having an accent. We’re belittling her for being a hypocrite.

    She’s trying to justify the fact that she changed her mind on same-sex marriage by positing the very arguments about “the right of the people to define rights” that she, herself, rejected only a few months ago!

  14. JD says

    “Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship” by Monte Wilson

    Those Charcoal Hearted. All they only do is embitter.

  15. JD says

    NARCISSISM. NARCISSISM. NARCISSISM. NARCISSISM. NARCISSISM. NARCISSISM. You’ll find what a narcissist when you type it up.

  16. Marc says

    California GLBTs,

    Seriously, what is wrong with you? You keep allowing incompetent people to manage your arguments for you and you’ll wind up in ovens.

    Who selected this guy to go against Starr? You people just keep fucking up again and again.

    But, it doesn’t matter anyway. To argue support for same-sex marriage state by state is foolish and worthless.

  17. Marc says

    I think you should give Brown’s team another shot to save the marriages that occurred while the law was in effect. You know, just so they can redeem themselves (And lose a second case).

  18. philberto says

    Kenneth Starr is a hate monger. This isn’t about same sex marriage. This is about Starr still trying to go after Bill Clinton.

  19. says

    russian accent? bitch? really? we’re lighting candles to have our rights honored but so quickly we pull from a bag of white supremacist xenophobic and misogynist ideologies.

    no wonder it was so easy to blame people of color for the passing of prop 8 without much hesitation or intellectual process.

  20. Mike says

    The good guys have lost. Anti-prop. 8 lawyer is stammering and the judges smell blood; Ken Starr is collegial and professional and the judges are eating it up. They are looking for a way to uphold “the will of the people”, and the haplessness of our guy combined with the persuasiveness of their guy, allows them to.

  21. Patrick says

    One reason the AG seemed so bad is that the argument he’s trying to articulate makes no sense. This case is an effort to have a court overturn a valid political act for policy reasons, not legal reasons. The court’s prior marriage decision was fine, but it drew a political response. Overturning this constitutional amendment would be unprincipled. A system that allows a constitution to be amended by referendum is ridiculous, but that’s the way it is. This fight needs to be won at the ballot box, not in court.

  22. freddy says

    Congrats, good people of California. You have defended marriage and taken it away from the evil gays.

    Now the gays will be sure to continue their lives of deviant promiscuity and inability to commit to one another.

    They have no other choice, I suppose.

  23. Wayne says

    The court seems inclined to rule that the people of the state of California have the power to govern themselves as they choose. In the end, it’s easy to rail against the court. But sadly, it was a majority of citizens in California that voted to pass this atrocious Prop. The blame is thiers, not the courts.

  24. Patrick says

    I’m not sure what a self-loathing homosexual sounds like, although I suspect it might sound something like the comment of David in Houston. I do know what a great lawyer sounds like; it sounds like Ken Starr.

  25. daisy says

    wayne is right. it was our relatives, neighbors, co-workers, and two-faced “friends” who did this. look around you and be aware.

  26. philberto says

    Someone should tell Ken Starr he needs to get over himself and recognize that he will never be able to discredit Clinton and his two terms in office. Ken Starr is a sad little man who is so filled with hate for Clinton that he will spend the rest of his life arguing against anything Democratic because he thinks Democrats and Clinton are one and the same. Sad little pathetic hate monger still trying to prove he is relevant when he lost that moniker over eight years ago.

  27. philberto says

    Someone should take Justice Kennard out into the hall and slap the shit out of her a few times. She hasn’t gotten laid in a long long time. Do we have to suffer because she can’t get a good fuck?

  28. FriendOfJonathan says

    “California GLBTs,

    Seriously, what is wrong with you? . . .”

    JD – have you any clue who actually has a say in selecting the attorneys for this, or any other case – or was your post simply an excuse to make a case for executing GLBTQ people?

    We GLBTQ people did not pick Geoff Kors or any of his team, and we did not tell Brown which attorney to send today.

  29. Matt says

    Kennard’s last 5 minutes just told us where sh’es gonna vote. This will have to go back tot he ballot.

  30. rigso says

    We’re doomed. The AG office flubbed this big time, and ken starr, as slimy as he is, is very effective. Ballot initiative in 2010 it is, hopefully then we can get our side to come out inhuge numbers, and with no presidential election its more likely.

  31. David in Houston says

    I do know what a closet homosexual sounds like, and he goes by the name of Patrick. Why else would he bother hanging out at a gay blog? How pathetic.

    PS: Sorry I offended your boyfriend, Kenny.

  32. Brian says

    People need to calm down and be respectful of the Court. Kennard was with us last time based on what the Constitution then provided, but the Constitution has now been changed. She and others seem concerned about their hands being tied, based on decades of precedent. That does not make them bad people, or Prop 8 supporters. They are doing their job. This issue is a very close call, they are under enormous pressure, and they should be respected no matter how they rule.

    The good news is that they really don’t seem to buy the retroactivity argument at all.

    My prediction is we lose 2-5 on upholding Prop 8, and win 7-0 on retroactivity.

  33. reddevilboy says

    i think that people need to look at this court proceeding a little more dispassionately (just the proceeding, not the issue)

    i think that the justices are interrupting and questioning the proponents of prop 8 just as much as the opposition
    there are just more of the opposition present to question that is making it seem one sided

    this is what court is like and the justices are doing what they are supposed to be doing, making the parties involved be clear on what they are saying

    that being said, it doesn’t look very promising that prop 8 will be overturned, though i am still holding on to hope

  34. kev says

    Well, civil unions were voted out of the Illinois House Committie and is on the House floor. Oh, and the MOrmons are here.

    And Kruger was just HORRIBLE. Jerry Brown governors chances just went to nil, nada

  35. Rocco says

    If Justice Kennard votes against us, and the portions I heard definitely sounded like she is inclined to, I believe it will
    be out of cowardice. I think she is afraid of becoming the new Rose bird. Sad day.

    One of my hopes is that I missed the “better parts.” It almost seems like the best we can hope for in this is the same sex marriages held between June and November will be upheld.

    I am no lawyer, but it is difficult to believe that “mob mentality” is within the rule of law. A majority can safely vote away the rights of any unpopular minority!?!

    I do think we can win at the ballot box if we have to. I do hope that we assemble a different team to lead us though!

    I don’t think anyone’s civil rights should be voted upon. I know we will eventually win. Difficult to accept that other countries are so far ahead of us on this issue.

    Seeming bottom line though: if we do not care enough about our own rights to get out and vote, who else can we really blame?

  36. Patrick says

    In a democracy, everyone’s rights are subject to be voted upon. Minorities only have rights because through some democratic process they have been granted or tolerated by a majority.

  37. Jesse says

    my take:

    Terry Stewart owned that courtroom,

    the Attorney General Representative, not so much, lol.

    Justice Kennard was a joke.

    My favorite quote from Miss Stewart was, “If the guarantee of equal rights to the minority is subjected to the opinions of the majority, it is no guarantee at all.”
    (please forgive my inaccuracy, and for it being out of context)

  38. John in CA says

    Democracy isn’t synonymous with the electoral process. You’re falling into the same logical fallacy as George W. Bush did.

    If elections were all it took to make a system “democratic,” then we certainly have to accept Hamas as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, we’d have no business going after Hugo Chavez for being a quote “dictator.” His extraordinary executive powers were enacted via a popular vote.