Tag Archives: Same Sex Marriage

Change In My Lifetime

Real change takes a long time and a lot of hard work. No one has worked harder for change than LGBT activists and it’s paid off. Bill Clinton signed DADT (remember this was considered a step forward at the time) and DOMA. In 2004, Republicans were putting anti-marriage equality laws on the ballot to boost the turnout of evangelical voters and deliver wins for George W. Bush. Just a few years ago both Maine and California saw marriage equality go down to narrow defeat in voter referendums. In 2011, however, marriage equality (not just civil unions) got majority support nationwide for the first time ever in multiple polls. A new poll of party insiders shows just how much things have changed in a few short years.

Democratic political operatives overwhelmingly say the time has come for gay marriage, while a majority of Republicans now believe they should just avoid this issue, according to this week’s National Journal Political Insiders Poll. Both positions represent significant gains for gay marriage compared to two years ago, when the same question was asked in the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

After New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed through a gay marriage law in the Empire State last month there is now very little reluctance among Democratic Insiders to see their party embrace the idea.

Which statement comes closest to your political views on gay marriage?
Democrats
…………………………………………July 2011….April 2009
My party should support it…………84%………….59%
My party should oppose it…………..1%……………2%
My party should avoid the issue…14%………….32%
Other (volunteered)…………………….1%*………….7%
*Also receiving votes: My party should move gradually towards support, 1%.

At the same time, less than a third of the Republican Insiders think their party should oppose gay marriage, a position that’s been enshrined in the party’s national platform.

Which statement comes closest to your political views on gay marriage?
Republicans
………………………………………….July 2011…….April 2009
My party should support it…………14%……………..8%
My party should oppose it………….30%……………50%
My party should avoid the issue….56%…………..37%
Other (volunteered)…………………….0%…………….6%

Many Democrats believe that gay marriage is not only “the right thing to do,” but that it is also no longer a wedge issue that cripples the party. “The country is moving quickly toward acceptance of gay marriage,” observed one Democratic Insider. “There is no need to hang back and expect civil unions to provide cover.”

Democrats also felt that support for gay marriage would solidify the party’s grip on younger voters. “It’s this generation’s civil rights movement,” exclaimed one Democratic Insider. “It’s a huge demographic opportunity for Democrats because almost every voter under 30 supports it,” said another.”

That’s a 20% turnaround in both parties in 2 short years. It’s pretty remarkable when you think about it. I’ve read before that social change is slow, until it isn’t anymore. The transitions can often be very, very fast. I wasn’t sure I believed it until now. It’s thrilling to watch it happen in my lifetime. We are only at the beginning of the big change.

Bitter Tears

Friday night was a historic night for New York state. It became the sixth state to approve marriage equality. It was also the first state to approve marriage equality by a bipartisan vote of their legislature. Many see this as huge momentum for bringing marriage equality to the whole country but their are still groups bitterly opposed. The most prominent of them is the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Below is their press release promising punishment for Republicans that dare vote yes on equality.

“The Republican party has torn up its contract with the voters who trusted them in order to facilitate Andrew Cuomo’s bid to be president of the U.S. Selling out your principles to get elected is wrong. Selling out your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb.

Gay marriage has consequences for the next generation, for parents, and for religious people, institutions and small business owners. Politicians who campaign one way on marriage, and then vote the other, need to understand: betraying and misleading voters has consequences, too. We are not giving up, we will continue to fight to protect marriage in New York, as we are actively doing in New Hampshire and Iowa.”

NOM’s pledge to commit at least $2 million in the 2012 elections to hold politicians accountable for their vote includes independent expenditures as well as through NOM PAC New York.

Even though full marriage equality is probably inevitable (with a lot of hard work), the Republicans that voted yes were particularly brave. Just for a reminder, here’s the statement from Republican Senator Grisanti:

“Tonight, I joined my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to legalize same sex marriage in New York State. Since I began my term as Senator I have met with many people on both sides of this issue, read numerous documents and independent studies. Given the high stakes, I felt I owed it to everyone to make a well-informed decision. I have come to believe that all New Yorkers should be entitled to the same rights that come with a civil marriage. As an attorney I analyzed the legislation and concluded that the amendments provide critical exemptions for religious institutions. Passage of this bill now rather than later ensures that these protections be included. I cannot deny anyone in my district and across New York the same rights I have with my wife.”

I think it must be quite tough to be a politician voting on an issue in the midst of a change. Just this year several national polls have shown a that a bare majority of Americans support marriage equality (not just civil unions). That means, though, that almost half don’t although full opposition is probably less than 40% or so. The politicians are trying to shift with the tide and aren’t always getting it right. We should keep up the pressure and make sure to reward politicians that do the right thing.

For further info on Senator Grisanti, here is an article titled “Grisanti on gay marriage vote: hero or villain?”

All Eyes On New York – Marriage Equality Vote Tonight

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of wrangling in New York on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. It is being reported that there is finally a religious exemption that will allow the bill to come to the floor tonight. Passage of the bill is not certain, 31 NY senators have said they will vote yes, but the bill needs 32 to pass. New York will be the 6th state to get marriage equality and Nate Silver added that New York will double the number of people eligible for same sex marriage.

Live feed – NY Senate

God Hates Civil Unions

Yesterday’s News Journal readers were treated to an editorial by The Rev. Rita Mishoe Paige and The Rev. Christopher A. Bullock in opposition to civil unions in Delaware. Why don’t we take a look to see if Rev. Paige and Rev. Bullock have found some convincing arguments. (Can I get a The in my title? From now on I’m The Unstable Isotope)

1. S.B. 30 is morally wrong and biblically incorrect. We believe in the original or traditional family structure of a husband, wife and children. This bill destroys the sanctity of marriage. In our opinion, God’s design for marriage is between one man and one woman only.

I believe they are called civil unions for a reason. Why should Rev. Paige’s and Bullock’s religion determine other people’s lives? Paige and Bullock are free to not marry same sex couples. Why do they think their religion should control what is recognized by the state?

OK, that didn’t go so well. What else do they have?

2. We are sending the wrong message to our young people. We are saying to them that it’s OK for two people of the same sex to fall in love with each other. However, these two people cannot biologically produce children together. Have you considered the negative impact on children whose parents enter into a civil union?

Have I considered the impact on the children that civil unions can’t produce supposedly? No, I can’t say that I have. Basically it’s a combination of marriage is for babieeesss and what about the children? arguments. YAWN.

We’re getting the same old arguments – tradition, Bible, babies. That’s all that’s left for the opponents of same sex marriage.

Civil Unions Bill Passes First Test

Yesterday the Senate had its first hearings for the Civil Unions bill. The bill passed out of committee (this was a worry) to go to the full Senate for a vote. At least in New Castle County, the bill hasn’t been particularly controversial (this is my feeling at least). However there are still critics and there seemed to some rather odd testimony yesterday:

The Rev. Doug Gerdts, pastor of First & Central Presbyterian Church, said nothing changed about his love for his daughter when she told him she was gay.

“But I found myself sad and angry,” he said. “Angry at a yet-to-be identified person or persons who might attempt to make her life painful, simply because of the way God created her. Sad that her life would have challenges and struggles that mine doesn’t.”

The Rev. Dale Mast, pastor of Destiny Christian Church of Dover, said he had a dear friend who was gay, whom he counseled and stood beside, who got AIDS and “went on a sexual rampage out of his anger.”

Mast said he fears what would come next if Delaware adopted civil unions — heterosexual unions with 14-year-old girls? He said pastors in Southeast Asia have told him of grandfathers taking their granddaughters to hotel rooms.

“I encourage you not to pass this,” he said. “What else will come?”

Is the new talking point that civil unions will lead to the legalization of marriage between adults and minors? Hey, at least he didn’t say marriage with dogs or box turtles. I hate to break it to Rev. Mast, but marriage between adults and minors is legal in many places already, especially in places hostile to same sex marriage. One thing that strikes me is that the opponents of same sex marriage have no new arguments – it’s all rather stale. It’s going to be harder and harder for them to argue as more states legalize these unions and civilization continues to stand.

I’ll admit to mixed feelings about this bill. I’m happy that a lot of people will benefit from this bill but I’m still sad that prejudice remains – the word “marriage” is only reserved for opposite sex couples. I’m hoping civil unions are just a temporary step to full marriage.

Chris Coons Sponsors DOMA Repeal

On Wednesday Senator Chris Coons announced that he is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the same provision that the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend in court.

U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) today reiterated his call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, cosponsoring a bill introduced today by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and 17 other Democratic Senators. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that forces the federal government to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman and instruct that the federal government shall no longer discriminate against same-sex couples.

“There are thousands of same-sex couples legally married in several states but whose marriages have been deemed invalid or unworthy by the federal government,” Senator Coons said. “The Respect for Marriage Act not only reverses this discriminatory provision but ensures LGBT families will be afforded the same federal rights as every other American. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.”

The Respect for Marriage Act does not legalize same-sex marriage beyond the states in which it is already legal. It respects the right of states to set their own marriage laws but ends federal discrimination against those same-sex couples legally married in those states in which it is permitted.

This would allow for civil unions in Delaware to be recognized by the Federal government. This could have big effects for same sex couples, allowing them to file joint tax forms but also allowing them to share pension and Social Security benefits. Marriage equality would become a state-by-state fight and the fight favors the supporters of marriage equality. The Human Rights campaign had the results of a poll on DOMA:

51 percent of voters oppose DOMA while 34 percent favor it. Independent voters, who were instrumental in the Republican House takeover, oppose the law by a 52 percent to 34 percent margin. Additionally, when read statements for and against defending DOMA in court, 54 percent of voters oppose the House Republicans’ intervention, while only 32 percent support it. Given a list of issues important in determining their vote for President, voters ranked the economy and jobs (54 percent), Medicare and Social Security (23 percent) and education (19 percent) as most important with only 5 percent of respondents saying marriage was most important to them. Finally, when presented with the actual benefits from which married same-sex couples are excluded, voters overwhelmingly support extending those benefits.

I have read previously that social changes can come quickly. The push for marriage equality is probably only about 20 years old. I remember when traditional marriage constitutional amendments were a winning issue for Republicans and way to bring their voters out to the polls. It’s now looking like a winning issue for Democrats:

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

“What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say ‘Hallelujah,'” Frank told reporters. “The fact that we’ve now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around.”

Sometimes being on the right side of history actually pays off. I think activists have a lot to learn from LGBT activism. Here’s a group that is motivated and effective. They give a lot of money and they vote. That’s why they are wielding political power. Their work is paying off and I’m happy to see it happening in my lifetime.

Obama Declares DOMA Unconstitutional

Yesterday the Obama administration announced that it would no longer appeal DOMA, Section 3 challenges in court. DOMA Section 3 is the part of the law that defines marriage as valid only between a man and a woman.

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

“The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder said. “Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday afternoon that they’d “will no longer defend DOMA going forward.”

“We will continue to enforce it and allow those cases to continue and be resolved so that Congress and members of Congress can pursue the defense if they so desire,” Carney said. “The President is obligated to defend the law.”

Obama is late to the party on this issue, but better late than never. This announcement could have a profound affect on cases already in the courts. So far, Massachusetts has asked the court to drop the appeal working its way through the courts (first ruling was in favor of marriage equality) and the challengers of Prop 8 have asked the California Appeals Court to drop the stay on the Prop 8 ruling.

As we’ve come to expect, Chris Coons has a perfect response on this issue:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) today praised the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

“The Defense of Marriage Act enshrined the discriminatory treatment of American citizens based on sexual orientation, which simply should not be a factor in a person’s access to equality in this country. Rather than defend an unconstitutional statue, the President today demonstrated his commitment to defending the Constitution and its prohibition on arbitrary discrimination.

“Whether or not the New York court ultimately agrees with the Administration’s position, the time for such discrimination is at an end. It is time to repeal DOMA and make clear that it is not the policy of the government of the United States of America to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation.

“I look forward to working with Senator Feinstein and my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal DOMA.”

John Boehner had an interesting response:

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

Wait, he’s concerned about jobs now? Greg Sargent notices something missing from Boehner’s statement – any mention of the culture wars. No talk of God or Jesus or the Bible at all.

It’s another sign that while the culture wars have reasserted themselves with a vengeance in the GOP’s anti-abortion push, gay rights issues have lost virtually all their potency and bite. As many have observed already, the generational divide within the GOP is asserting itself on gay rights in a way that it simply hasn’t on abortion. It’ll be very interesting to see if any real support emerges from GOP leaders for the scattered calls we’ll be hearing among conservatives to defund the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell. My bet is there won’t be any to speak of — another sign that on this issue at least, things are moving in the right direction.

I’d like to believe that this particular part of the culture war is losing steam but I see the fight over CPAC and don’t think we’re even close to the end. I’d love to be wrong.

Marriage Equality vs. Civil Unions

Yesterday Governor Markell held a meeting with state bloggers to talk about state issues. In the meeting I asked the governor if he supported marriage equality and he stated that he supports the Civil Union legislation being discussed in Dover now.. When I challenged him as to why he didn’t support full marriage equality, he stated that he hadn’t thought through it.

As I told the governor I’m not a fan of civil unions. It’s not that I don’t support the idea behind them but I think it still puts LGBT people in a second, “lesser” status. Civil unions still preserve the idea that opposite sex marriage is somehow better and purer and allows people to preserve their prejudice. It is ridiculous to me to argue about the sanctity of Newt Gingrich’s third marriage or Rush Limbaugh’s fourth marriage.

I like to tell people that my husband and I have a civil union. We were married by a judge at a B&B. One could argue that marriage is a religious ritual but it’s already too late. The state is already in the “marriage” business, recognizing marriage as a contract that comes with certain rights and privileges. Civil unions are supposed to recognize the legal contract while preserving the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples.

In my mind it’s a simple issue of fairness. If some couples are allowed marriage, it should be available to same sex couples as well. Our rights are supposed to be for everyone. Rights aren’t something that should be put to a vote.

If civil unions is the only thing we can get, of course I support this. But I can’t get excited about relegating same sex couples to a better (perhaps significantly better) second class status.

2nd Fundraising Appeal – Delaware Right To Marry

Editor’s note: this post first appeared on December 5, 2010. It has now been updated to include a link to the Act Blue fundraising page.

Guest post by Bill Humphrey of Delaware Right to Marry

My name is Bill Humphrey and I am the Statewide Director of Delaware Right to Marry Political Action Committee. I want to thank Unstable Isotope and liberalgeek for helping us get the word out about our effort, which made its public launch on Thursday evening. Many of you are familiar with me a bit from my comments on this site or from my political talk show on WVUD. Delaware Liberal was definitely one of the first few sites I thought of to mention the launch, as you might have seen in Thursday’s open thread, and I’m glad to have this opportunity to expand on that.

To let you all know what is going on, we are working to pass our proposed marriage equality bill (summary here) through the state legislature during the 2011 legislative session. During the late winter/early spring we will be announcing various ways you can get involved and events you can help out at, but of course like any campaign, we do need money right now. If you can spare some for us, we would really appreciate it. I will try to answer any questions you might have in the comments on this thread when I get a chance during the day, and you can certainly email me (director at delawarerighttomarry.com).

Our first goal is to raise $25 each from 106 people, totaling $2650, by December 16 (because I will be away after that and unable to deposit checks for a couple weeks), which will pay for the first statewide public opinion poll taken on any gay issues in several years. We will be testing support for marriage equality, civil unions, and specific provisions or variations upon our marriage proposal. This poll is going to be essential for demonstrating support for marriage equality to state legislators.

Checks should be made out to “Delaware Right to Marry PAC.”

Our address is:
Delaware Right to Marry PAC
PO Box 590
Newark DE 19715

Please provide a means of contacting you in case we have any questions about your contribution for legal purposes. And we want to be able to send you a thank you note, of course!

You can also contribute through Act Blue.

Goal Thermometer

There are no contribution limits to PACs in the state of Delaware, but you must be at least 18 years of age, a U.S. citizen, and making the donation from a non-corporate account on your own behalf only (or else there is special documentation required first). Please be sure to provide your full name, address, employer, and occupation for our reporting requirements. Your contribution is essential, as we are a low-budget, all-volunteer operation.

Thanks,
Bill Humphrey
Statewide Director
Delaware Right to Marry PAC

PS: If you have not seen our website, be sure to check it out.

On the web: http://www.delawarerighttomarry.com/
On Twitter: @DERightToMarry
On Facebook: Delaware Right to Marry PAC

Fundraising Appeal – Delaware Right To Marry

Guest post by Bill Humphrey of Delaware Right to Marry

My name is Bill Humphrey and I am the Statewide Director of Delaware Right to Marry Political Action Committee. I want to thank Unstable Isotope and liberalgeek for helping us get the word out about our effort, which made its public launch on Thursday evening. Many of you are familiar with me a bit from my comments on this site or from my political talk show on WVUD. Delaware Liberal was definitely one of the first few sites I thought of to mention the launch, as you might have seen in Thursday’s open thread, and I’m glad to have this opportunity to expand on that.

To let you all know what is going on, we are working to pass our proposed marriage equality bill (summary here) through the state legislature during the 2011 legislative session. During the late winter/early spring we will be announcing various ways you can get involved and events you can help out at, but of course like any campaign, we do need money right now. If you can spare some for us, we would really appreciate it. I will try to answer any questions you might have in the comments on this thread when I get a chance during the day, and you can certainly email me (director at delawarerighttomarry.com).

Our first goal is to raise $25 each from 106 people, totaling $2650, by December 16 (because I will be away after that and unable to deposit checks for a couple weeks), which will pay for the first statewide public opinion poll taken on any gay issues in several years. We will be testing support for marriage equality, civil unions, and specific provisions or variations upon our marriage proposal. This poll is going to be essential for demonstrating support for marriage equality to state legislators.

We don’t have an online system yet, so we’re only taking checks at the moment, which should be made out to “Delaware Right to Marry PAC.” (In fact, we will be able to lower our fundraising goal with more checks and fewer credit card donations anyway because we keep 100% of the face value of checks.)

Our address is:
Delaware Right to Marry PAC
PO Box 590
Newark DE 19715

Please provide a means of contacting you in case we have any questions about your contribution for legal purposes. And we want to be able to send you a thank you note, of course!

There are no contribution limits to PACs in the state of Delaware, but you must be at least 18 years of age, a U.S. citizen, and making the donation from a non-corporate account on your own behalf only (or else there is special documentation required first). Please be sure to provide your full name, address, employer, and occupation for our reporting requirements. Your contribution is essential, as we are a low-budget, all-volunteer operation.

Thanks,
Bill Humphrey
Statewide Director
Delaware Right to Marry PAC

PS: If you have not seen our website, be sure to check it out.

On the web: http://www.delawarerighttomarry.com/
On Twitter: @DERightToMarry
On Facebook: Delaware Right to Marry PAC

Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Comes Out

Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. As MJ said, this was probably the worst-kept secret in Washington. Mehlman joins a long line of former Republican officials who disavow their previous actions or make bold statements in favor of civil rights when they’re no longer in power. As Mehlman admitted in his interview with The Atlantic:

Mehlman’s leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities — such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party’s platform (“Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country…”). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.

Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.

Well, it’s better late than never and Mehlman is now doing the right thing in supporting marriage equality. Mehlman has become a top fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) and has convinced some top Republican donors to contribute to the group.

Just in case you get too many warm fuzzies from Mehlman’s transformation, just read this part of the interview:

He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now.”

They’re probably more concerned with the anti-gay forces right here in America, Ken.

Prop 8: Ted Olson Destroys Chris Wallace

One of the interesting things about the Prop 8 trial was that the defenders of Prop 8 were so ill-prepared for their court case. The Prop 8 defenders only called 2 witnesses and one of the witnesses had their testimony completely ignored. The opponents of Prop 8 called many, many witnesses to demolish the “scientific” opposition to same sex marriage – like the myths that same sex couples are bad for children. The trial was a farce from the start because the arguments that the Prop 8 defenders had were 1) will of the people, 2) tradition and 3) religion. However, to win a case you need good lawyers and Ted Olson shows why he’s one of the best:

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”

When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Here’s some interesting speculation from Pam’s House Blend, is the Prop 8 case actually over? Both the California AG Jerry Brown and California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger have asked Judge Walker to lift the stay on the ruling and allow same sex marriages to proceed:

In a motion filed late yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiff couples and the City of San Francisco argued that marriages should be allowed to begin immediately, rather than be stayed pending appeal. One of their arguments was that an appeal might never happen. They argued this because the governmental defendants – the Governator and the once (and future!) Governor Moonbeam – are not appealing and the Yes on 8 proponents – who were let in at the trial court as intervenors – don’t have standing to appeal.

In a nutshell, from a non-lawyer, it seems that Justice Ginsburg, in the opinion to Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (which was decided on other grounds), expressed “grave doubts” as to whether the proponents of a ballot measure had standing to appeal a federal court ruling in the absence of governmental actors making an appeal. In other words, the Yes on 8 folks might not have the right to appeal Walker’s decision.

This, apparently, is why Imperial County tried to get in on the case in the eleventh hour – the haters realized that without a government entity willing to appeal, they could be shit out of luck. But Walker shut them down, both saying they didn’t have a good reason to be let in and that they waited until after the deadline, so they really are SOL. So unless Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown have a sudden change of heart and decide to appeal the ruling (or Imperial County convinces a higher court that they really should be in on the case) Walker’s ruling could be the final word.