• firstJudge Vaughn Walker decided that Wednesday would be the day he’d take the hold off of gay marriage in California.
• thenThe supporters of Prop 8 decided to appeal the stay to the famously liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
• now The appeals court will decide by Monday, at which point it could go to Supreme Court Justice Antony Kennedy. source

• » Why it’s a preview: Two reasons. First, Kennedy is the swing vote on the court, meaning what he decides could be an early harbinger of the full case. Second, Kennedy may ask for guidance from the court on where to go next. So, Prop 8 followers, we may find out soon whether or not gay marriage is likely to get legalized in the U.S.

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

• Credit where credit is due. Legal documents aren’t nearly as exciting as videos, obviously, but that didn’t stop the Prop 8 decision from becoming Scribd’s most viral document ever – getting 100,000 views in 24 MINUTES. It currently rests at 280,000 views, which would be a pretty killer number for your average YouTube video. And Scribd took advantage of the extra traffic by loading the document with display ads. Need any more evidence that Scribd’s move to HTML5 was a really good idea? Here you go. source

• Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
• Judge Vaughn R. Walker • In his decision on same-sex marriage. To put it simply: Prop 8 made gay people second-class citizens. No mincing words. Walker says that the law violated the plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights, which overall locks up the ruling tightly. Of course it’s going to get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but it’s worth noting two things: First, Walker, who is gay, was assigned the case randomly. And second, lest you think he’s an activist judge, he’s actually a right-leaning George W. Bush appointee. Bush, as you might remember, was a hard-left liberal. source

• At the end of the day, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t have to present any evidence,’ with all respect to Mr. Cooper, doesn’t cut it.
• Lawyer Ted Olson • Arguing during the Proposition 8 trial yesterday against defense lawyer Charles Cooper, who used the phrase “you don’t have to have evidence” to prove that gay marriage is illegal. Now – we could be wrong here, but something tells us that’s a pretty crappy argument to make in any courtroom, in any case. The judge, by the way, was pretty tough with his questioning – on both sides of the coin. source

• A final decision will be coming in a few weeks. A lot of people are watching California’s gay marriage trial, and it’s one that should have a lot of fireworks. In the closing arguments, Judge Vaughn Walker is looking to see if gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage, if being gay is a choice, and if California voters were justified in banning gay marriage. Today could change everything. source

• At the beginning of this trial we said we would prove three points: that marriage is a fundamental right; that gays and lesbians, and the children they are raising, are harmed from the prohibition of their being able to marry; and allowing them to marry will not harm anyone … we proved all of those points.
• Lawyer David Boies • On finishing up his side of arguing the landmark Proposition 8 court case in a California federal court. Boies says that he and fellow lawyer Theodore Olson are “pleased to be finishing our case today.” Now the pro-Prop. 8 side goes up, and argues against the legalization of gay marriage. Anyone think this case is like our Scopes trial? Seems like it has that kind of intrigue to it. source

• Everything about the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the broadcast (and the Proposition 8 camp’s request to black out the trial in the first place) betrays a deep ambivalence about the same humble American voter whose very rights the court purports to be defending.
• Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick • Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to ban cameras during the Proposition 8 gay marriage trial in California. Lithwick claims the trial itself is somewhat questionable, but the banning of cameras in the courtroom is beyond absurd and is completely disrespectful to the rights of the American public. She further explains: “As it explains in its order: ‘This case, too, involves issues subject to intense debate in our society’ and it ‘is therefore not a good one for a pilot program.’ So, um, we the people are only fit to watch low-profile, boring cases?” source

• 5-4 the righties beat the lefties again at the High Court source

• [It’s] like putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill and saying, ‘You can only have a bite.’ And you want the whole thing. … All I want is to be married.
• Plaintiff Paul Katami • Using perhaps the strangest metaphor we’ve ever heard to explain the benefits of gay marriage over civil unions. Katami has been with his partner, Jeffrey Zarrillo, for nine years. This line of arguing is downright strange for a lot of reasons, the biggest being “The Twinkie Defense,” which was used by the lawyer for Dan White, who was charged with killing gay-rights icon (and recent biopic subject) Harvey Milk. Do you really want to draw parallels? Really? source

• good The trial on the legality of Prop. 8 began today, and should have cameras in the courtroom, due to the intense attention the gay marriage trial has been getting, with clips posted on YouTube.
• bad The Supreme Court decided 8-1 to temporarily block the measure for at least the next couple of days, while the court considers arguments against it made by those in favor of the California law. source