Heads are likely going to roll tommorrow...

[CrazyPhuD]

Heh willing to bet this ends up in DC before too long but hopefully not. Personally it's not going to affect me much either way, but I would laugh my ass off at the Mormon church is their efforts to stop prop 8 ends up with a supreme court decision in favor of gay marriage. Way to go geniouses....LMAO

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/03/BAF11EODM9.DTL&tsp=1

Prop. 8 supporters plan appeal before ruling
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(08-03) 19:18 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal court ruling on the right of same-sex couples to marry in California is scheduled to be released today - and opponents of gay and lesbian nuptials are already making plans to appeal.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco will decide whether Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violated gays' and lesbians' right of equality under the U.S. Constitution.

After court officials on Tuesday announced plans to release the decision, Prop. 8's sponsors filed papers making it clear they expect to lose this round. They asked Walker, if he rules against them, to leave the ban on same-sex marriages in place while they appeal.

Lawyers for Prop. 8's backers told the judge they are confident that any such ruling would be overturned on appeal. They said a stay would honor the will of the voters and would not harm same-sex couples, who can still register as domestic partners.

Walker presided over a nonjury trial in January, the first ever held in a federal court on the issue. The plaintiffs, two gay men from Burbank and two lesbians from Berkeley, testified that their hopes to be married were thwarted when voters overturned the May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

The plaintiffs' witnesses also included researchers who said sexual orientation has no relationship to successful parenting and that marriage in the United States is an evolving institution.

The conservative religious coalition that sponsored Prop. 8 offered testimony that the male-female definition of marriage is universal and that children are better off with married, biological parents.

The city of San Francisco joined the lawsuit on the plaintiffs' side. Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend Prop. 8 and said he considers it unconstitutional.

Walker's ruling, due sometime between 1 and 3 p.m., is certain to be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012.

A group that supports same-sex marriage has announced a march from the Castro district to City Hall, starting at 5 p.m., followed by a rally from 6:45 to 8 p.m.

[Chiefspants]

It will not happen with our current supreme court.

[CrazyPhuD]

It will not happen with our current supreme court.

Odds are probably longer, but I wouldn't be so sure about it. I was looking up to see if this was the appeals or district court and ran into some interesting info on the judge ruling on the case....

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics". Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.

Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1966 and Stanford Law School in 1970. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989. Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay.

A gay judge appointed buy two of the repulican icons, likely ruling in favor of gay marrige, who was originally objected to nomination for insensitivity to gay causes. If that can happen who the hell knows what the courts wil do with it?

[Dave Lane]

Good for them, why anyone would want to be married is my biggest WTF moment.

[Garcia Bronco]

Odds are probably longer, but I wouldn't be so sure about it. I was looking up to see if this was the appeals or district court and ran into some interesting info on the judge ruling on the case....

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics". Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.

Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1966 and Stanford Law School in 1970. After serving as a law clerk for United States District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher from 1971 to 1972, he practiced in San Francisco at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro from 1972 until his September 7, 1989, nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989. Walker is one of two federal judges publicly known to be gay.

A gay judge appointed buy two of the repulican icons, likely ruling in favor of gay marrige, who was originally objected to nomination for insensitivity to gay causes. If that can happen who the hell knows what the courts wil do with it?

How can a Gay Judge rule on this? It would seem to be a conflict of interest almost like ruling on a case that involves a relative or ruling on a case where the judge has financial interest.

[Hydrae]

How can a Gay Judge rule on this? It would seem to be a conflict of interest almost like ruling on a case that involves a relative or ruling on a case where the judge has financial interest.

And there would be less conflict of interest for a heterosexual judge?

[loochy]

How can a Gay Judge rule on this? It would seem to be a conflict of interest almost like ruling on a case that involves a relative or ruling on a case where the judge has financial interest.

Wait wait wait....what what what? Gays can be judges now?

[Skyy God]

It will not happen with our current supreme court.

I wouldn't be that confident.

Justice Kennedy is the swing vote and he authored two cases which, arguably, are pro-gay rights. Lawrence v. Texas struck down an anti-sodomy law and Romer v. Evans ruled unconstitutional a provision prohibiting the protection of gays.

[Brock]

How can a Gay Judge rule on this? It would seem to be a conflict of interest almost like ruling on a case that involves a relative or ruling on a case where the judge has financial interest.

Are you against black judges ruling on race issues?

[loochy]

Are you against black judges ruling on race issues?

There are black judges too? Wtf? Why don't we just throw some women in there and have a complete cluster f***?

[jidar]

Firstly... gee do you really think this is a DC topic? (your sarcasm meter should be exploding right now)

Second. This is so clearly an issue that will be resolved in favor of the gays that I wonder how people can be so blind not to see it. It's not a matter of if, just when, and 100 years from now the anti-gay marraige people will be on the wrong side of history. Do you wonder if you would have been for or against women and minority suffrage? Well I'd say your stance on this issue might be an indicator.

[Demonpenz]

it's better to deal with this now than later.

[Hound333]

It honestly doesn't bother me if they get married. Most of them already act like they are married and spend as much time together. I don't think you can force a Church to marry them if its against that religion but in the courts... Marry away.

[Dave Lane]

Good balanced answer and I feel the same. The individual churches can make up whatever policy they want.

[Pants]

There are black judges too? Wtf? Why don't we just throw some women in there and have a complete cluster f***?

LMAO

[LaChapelle]

If we can't have mulitple wives
they can't have scissoring

[chris]

[QUOTE=CrazyPhuD;6915554]Heh willing to bet this ends up in DC before too long but hopefully not. Personally it's not going to affect me much either way, but I would laugh my ass off at the Mormon church is their efforts to stop prop 8 ends up with a supreme court decision in favor of gay marriage. Way to go geniouses....LMAO

I really doubt the Mormon church cares about your opinion or what you think.

Why is this topic wasting good Football Topic Space?? Off to DC and let the culture wars continue!

[Skyy God]

Second. This is so clearly an issue that will be resolved in favor of the gays that I wonder how people can be so blind not to see it. It's not a matter of if, just when, and 100 years from now the anti-gay marraige people will be on the wrong side of history. Do you wonder if you would have been for or against women and minority suffrage? Well I'd say your stance on this issue might be an indicator.

That.

FYI, early word is that the defense filed a motion for stay. In other words, plaintiff's judgement.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/08/04/expect-a-win-for-plaintiffs-and-gay-marriage-in-perry-prop8-case/

[Tombstone RJ]

It honestly doesn't bother me if they get married. Most of them already act like they are married and spend as much time together. I don't think you can force a Church to marry them if its against that religion but in the courts... Marry away.

Dude, all it's gonna due is make divorce lawyers richer. Seriously, think about it.

I'm against gay marriage because I want tort reform. Too many lawyers making money off the stupid.

[LaChapelle]

Men not having to marry getting married
how gay

[DenverChief]

That.

FYI, early word is that the defense filed a motion for stay. In other words, plaintiff's judgement.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/08/04/expect-a-win-for-plaintiffs-and-gay-marriage-in-perry-prop8-case/


I doubt it will be approved