Comments

  1. TKinSC says

    In this case where nobody is defending the ban and the defendant uses state resources to urge the gay judge to side with the gay plaintiffs, I’m on the edge of my seat wondering what the outcome is going to be.

    I hope the judge rules quickly; the suspense is killing me!

  2. simon says

    Tkinsc:
    If you are so concerned, why not do something to uphold the ban. Like stage a protest or do something extreme to get attention. Commenting here in a gay site is like preaching to the wrong choir.
    It is interesting that no one is defending it. It may mean the judge will issue a default judgement to lift the ban and no one will even appeal it.

  3. says

    Why isn’t the ADF putting up lawyers to defend the ban? Did the local Oregon crazies who sponsored the ballot measure not invite counsel to defend their position? Were they not allowed in the court because of standing issues?

    I’ve heard that it’s always best to have “both” sides represented, even if one side is as egregious as the anti-marriage crew, because (the thinking goes) having opposing views represented makes the resulting judgment stronger if only because the judge can make a display of showing how wrong the wrong side is.

  4. Keppler says

    This is all about standing. ADF doesn’t have standing to appeal, so what’s the point of mounting a defense.

  5. Robert M. says

    The Prop 8 SCOTUS ruling that outside groups lacked standing seems to have scared off the crazies, for once…

  6. SIMON says

    Tkinsc:
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a raging c*nt. I’m just having a really bad hair day.

  7. SIMON says

    Tkinsc:
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a raging c*nt. I’m just having a really bad hair day.

  8. SIMON says

    Tkinsc:
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a raging c*nt. I’m just having a really bad hair day.

  9. SIMON says

    Tkinsc:
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a raging c*nt. I’m just having a really bad hair day.

  10. SIMON says

    Tkinsc:
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a raging c*nt. I’m just having a really bad hair day.

  11. TKinSC says

    Simon:
    Apology accepted. (The fifth time you posted it convinced me.)

    And protests don’t work on judges. (At least, one hopes they don’t.)

    The Oregon Attorney General should do her job and defend the Oregon Constitution. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are more than capable of making their case. If Oregon really has no plausible defense (and I think that’s hardly the case), then the AG can bow out, but she shouldn’t join the other side.