Yay, Dana and DH!

Kate, flinging love back at you and M. The pictures of Chesterfield and Worthington have cheered me up a great deal.

Yay, Dana! Is it where you currently live, or would it involve yet another move? (Perhaps back to warmer climes, although I appreciate having you in my time zone.)

Is it where you currently live, or would it involve yet another move? (Perhaps back to warmer climes, although I appreciate having you in my time zone.)

I would love warmer climes, but no, this is actually at the same place where I work. In the same building, no less.

All caught up on 800+ posts since last Friday. To sum up:

Yay for baby Aeryn!!!

Yay for Dana's hub's job offer!!!

Yay for everyone who did onerous tasks!!!

Boo for anyone's illnesses or other bad things happening!!!

I had to take a short break from work the afternoon and go over to the doctor's for a blood pressure check and brief chat with my PCP. Turns out the blood pressure that was at 155/92 last time we checked is now at 120/70--woohoo!!! Doctor says I should continue with the Lisinopril for a little while, but I can start cutting them in half. Also, they took some blood to see where my Vitamin D level is.

As a little reward for myself for doing so well on the post-surgery, I called and scheduled an hour massage on Saturday afternoon--got a coupon for a $50 session.

My onerous task for tonight is to do my laundry after picking up a pill box and cutter at Walgreens, and then tomorrow, I'm dropping off my kitchen knives at Ace Hardware to get sharpened, because trying to chop up an onion was getting a bit difficult.

Woo hoo Dana and Dana's DH.

The pictures of Chesterfield and Worthington have cheered me up a great deal.

Aw! Yeah, me too. I won't lie, I usually have a picture of one of the kitties open in another tab while I'm at work. Always happy to spread the kittylove!

Turns out the blood pressure that was at 155/92 last time we checked is now at 120/70--woohoo!!

Awesome news, Kathy!

Oh, and I meant to say:

Happy Birthday, shrift!!

Now that I've lost some weight, I can finally have my way-too-long-delayed pap smear, which I'm going to schedule along with the rest of the complete physical in mid-February. I'm hoping the doctor will give me the okay to go off of the Lisinopril then.

So nice to see all the good news here! Welcome baby Aeryn! Congrats to the whole family.

And yay for Dana and DH!

(I am totally ignoring the bleaching conversation.)

>To wit: if the state government refuses to defend the proposition, do the proponents of the proposition (i.e., the homophobes) have standing to defend it from being overturned?

I am running out the door and I hate to post a question and run, but there are so many smart lawyer types here and I've been wondering for a while now why the proponents would have been given standing after the Gov and the Atty Gen refused to defend it. So how does that sort of thing work?

why the proponents would have been given standing after the Gov and the Atty Gen refused to defend it. So how does that sort of thing work?

Yeah, I'm not clear on that, except that without someone having standing at the trial court level, the case could not have been heard at all. And that's not right. But now that the case has been heard, the Prop 8 proponents may not have the standing to appeal the decision.

Actually, and I'll let Bon correct me if I'm wrong-- I think what happened was:

1. Prop 8 passes. Gay rights organizations sue the State.
2. State government is the defendent in the court, can't back out of it, but the Gov & AG refuse to affirmatively defend the Prop.
3. The proponents filed papers to allow them to defend it on the state's behalf.
4. Prop 8 loses in the trial court.
5. Proponents file appeal. State does not appeal.
6. This is where the standing question comes in: do the proponents have the right to appeal if the party with the real legal interest (the State) refuses to? I think the answer is No, but that's the question sent to the CA Supreme Court.

And the question it comes down to is: do the proponents of Prop 8 have a legally-protected interest that is threatened by the overturning of Prop 8? Which is really also a substantive claim about the proposition, not just a procedural one, since they're arguing that SSM is a direct threat to them (although they were utterly unable to articulate the nature of the threat in the trial court).