Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyAugust 16th, 2010
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled:
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.
This is a partial victory. Ted Olson had requested that if the stay was granted, that the case be expedited and gave suggested dates. These dates are very close to those requested by Olson.
If the appeal is to begin in the first week of December, it will be over before the new governor and state attorney general are sworn in, whomever they may be.
Jim’s Update: Another key point is that the Court orders the Alliance Defense Fund to show why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. This is more great news, since it’s still not even clear that the court will actually hear an appeal.
In the meantime, this will probably push the possible resumption of same-sex marriages until sometime in 2011, since it can take anywhere from several weeks to several months following oral arguments for the court to issue its decision.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Bruno
August 16th, 2010
The Article III standing question seems to be a serious one. Overall, this was what I expected to happen.
Lindoro Almaviva
August 16th, 2010
well, the appeal has not been granted, it seems that the court wants to hear from the proponents on how and why should they not be laughed off the court.
Am I not reading this well?
Timothy Kincaid
August 16th, 2010
The burden of proof is on ADF for “why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.”
Kate
August 16th, 2010
It seems to me strangely ironic, and deeply frustrating, that a fight over the right to love another person should be waged with such dry rhetoric and exacting legal terminology. Did I miss something, or is there no real reason given for the decision to grant the stay? My heart hurts to see this; I want to know why they can hide behind arcane legalese to deny two people the right to celebrate love.
Jake
August 16th, 2010
No this isn’t a partial victory, it’s a complete disaster. The only possibly good thing about it is that they’ve expedited the schedule.
Granting the stay: Bad news for at least 4 more months.
Questioning the standing of the only people appealing this: Worse news. If the 9th circuit refuses to hear this because they lack standing, then the ruling only applies in California and never makes it to SCOTUS.
What would have been great news is denying the stay and saying yeah you’ve got standing. Then people who wanted to get married would have 4 months (at least) to get their acts together, and the case would likely be decided in our favor and apply to every Pacific State (and AZ, NV, MT, and ID). SCOTUS isn’t as friendly of territory but even if did get eventually shot down there, 9 states would have marriage equality for some period of time.
Michael
August 16th, 2010
Jake,
First, take a deep breath.
Second, these are important, precedent setting decisions. Everyone involved in these decisions is making every effort to ensure that every “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed to ensure that no claims of “bias” can be raised, and that their decisions are unassailable. They are well aware that their’s is not the final say, and any decision reached by the 9th Circuit Court will be carefully scrutinized and reviewed by the press, the world and ultimately, the SCOTUS. They are covering their asses.
Even the public is now realizing that (in spite of all the inflammatory rhetoric) this is a basic issue of civil rights. The fundamental issue of the 14th amendment will prevail.
cd
August 16th, 2010
Well, the silver lining is that a referendum to restore SSM legality in November 2012 will likely pass. That would make the lawsuit moot.
Coxygru
August 17th, 2010
Sua sponte! The court wrote it was taking this case “sua sponte” – on its own initiative – since, as it states, Prop8 backers clearly have no standing to make this appeal.
Prup (aka Jim Benton
August 17th, 2010
One point that no one seems to be making is that, by waiting until December, the Court is keeping a mid-October ruling from energizing Republican voters, not just in CA, but everywhere. Doubt if it was their intention, but it is a pleasant side effect.
Leave A Comment