Comments on: Liveblogging Day 3: Daily Summary

By: radiator flush

radiator flush — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:51:51 +0000

Inet Reader…

[...]follow the other links to read more[...]…

By: Prop 8 Trial Coverage

Prop 8 Trial Coverage — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:46:19 +0000

[...] 1 – Day 2 – Day 3 – Day 4 – Day 5 – Week 1 [...]

By: Melinda

Melinda — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:26:50 +0000

Awesome. Thanks!

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:27:18 +0000

Uncle Charlie…. <3!

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:26:19 +0000

Great feed, I'm sending it to everybody I know.

No discrimination, my Aunt Charlie! R.I.P. 1992

By: Callie

Callie — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:56:45 +0000

Thank you! I will!

By: eaamidwestconference

eaamidwestconference — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:35:41 +0000

That was what I was going to ask too. Was that a typo?

Firedoglake's liveblog says he says No to that.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23817

I appreciate having both these liveblogs as an amazing resource!

By: Mrs. R A-W

Mrs. R A-W — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:19:48 +0000

While we are thousands of miles away, we are 'present' in spirit and support those who dedicate their life to equality and same sex marriage!

By: Sean Chapin

Sean Chapin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:43:20 +0000

My video response related to Day 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGx4N6v7kQE

By: Don Davis

Don Davis — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:15:21 +0000

Because, in Constitutional law, to lawfully discrimate against members of a suspect class, the government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest. Classification of people as part of a "quasi-suspect class" (such as gender and sexual orientation) afford members of that class a lower level of scrutiny of governmental action by the courts. Under this lower scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. This just means that as long as the action (Proposition was substantially related to the "important" state interest of preserving what the proponents say is the long-standing tradition of marriage as between a male and female, it passes constitutional muster.