What! You relied on actual testimony?

The anti-gay reactions to the denial of a stay in the Calif. gay marriage case are coming in. Much of it can be dismissed by saying Judge Walker already debunked that notion in the case itself. Only a few are worth mentioning.

* The judge relied only on testimony and excluded "legislative facts." The definition of that phrase is not clear. The judge refused to acknowledge that 7 million people voted for the ban? The judge refused to consider social presumption or facts found in books? Perhaps the phrase means the reams of "facts" a legislator uses in determining how to write a law and how to vote on it -- which doesn't exist in a voter-led initiative.

* The judge scared away all credible witnesses on the anti-gay side.

* Overturning the ban that 7 million people voted for labels them as bigots and defames them as homophobes. That's cruel. And ironic, since these same voters are behind the most progressive gay-rights protections. (Never mind that 6.5 million people voted to permit gay marriage.)

The request for appeal is in the hands of the 9th Circuit. Requests are to be kept to 20 pages or less. This one is 95 pages. Not the way one wants to endear themselves to a judge. I'll post news as I hear it.