<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liveblogging Day 11: Part III</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=liveblogging-day-11-part-iii</link>
	<description>Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Tracking the right-wing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:56:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liveblogging Day 11: Part II &#171; Prop 8 Trial Tracker</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-206963</link>
		<dc:creator>Liveblogging Day 11: Part II &#171; Prop 8 Trial Tracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-206963</guid>
		<description>[...] Liveblogging Day 11: Part III [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Liveblogging Day 11: Part III [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207272</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207272</guid>
		<description>Would you agree, my namesake, that Professor Miller is getting rogered? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would you agree, my namesake, that Professor Miller is getting rogered?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207271</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207271</guid>
		<description>&quot;if God be for us, who shall be against us? Who shall lay any charge against God&#039;s elect? 
 
&quot;it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? 
 
&quot;it is Christ who died,  yea rather that is risen again, who sitteth at the right hand of God, Who maketh intercession for us!&quot; 
 
(Romans 8;31,33,34) 
 
Sounds very pretty sung by a good soprano, but somehow I don&#039;t think Judge Walker will admit a recording into evidence.. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;if God be for us, who shall be against us? Who shall lay any charge against God&#039;s elect? </p>
<p>&quot;it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? </p>
<p>&quot;it is Christ who died,  yea rather that is risen again, who sitteth at the right hand of God, Who maketh intercession for us!&quot; </p>
<p>(Romans 8;31,33,34) </p>
<p>Sounds very pretty sung by a good soprano, but somehow I don&#039;t think Judge Walker will admit a recording into evidence..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marlene Bomer</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207270</link>
		<dc:creator>Marlene Bomer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207270</guid>
		<description>Andrew -- Another poster in another thread mention that the church back in the 70s nearly lost their 401(c)(3) tax status if they didn&#039;t start admitting black men to their priesthood, and lo and behold their chief high all-wise what&#039;shistitle had a &quot;convenient&quot; revelation and decreed black men WEREN&#039;T cursed by god and thus could be priests. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew &#8212; Another poster in another thread mention that the church back in the 70s nearly lost their 401(c)(3) tax status if they didn&#039;t start admitting black men to their priesthood, and lo and behold their chief high all-wise what&#039;shistitle had a &quot;convenient&quot; revelation and decreed black men WEREN&#039;T cursed by god and thus could be priests.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marlene Bomer</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207269</link>
		<dc:creator>Marlene Bomer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207269</guid>
		<description>Jim (aka Prup) -- I&#039;m going to have to disagree with you on this one. 
 
Sotomayor, once all the kerfuffle about her &quot;wise Latina&quot; quip died down, got a slam dunk 68-31 confirmation by the Senate. If more centrists like her are on the bench, they&#039;ll counterbalance the bigots on the court (Scalia, Scalito, and Thomas). 
 
I think Kennedy will vote on our side, because I he voted to block both A2 (Romer v Evans) and Lawrence v Texas, and in fact wrote the majority opinion for both decisions! But we shall see once it reaches the Court. 
 
Kennedy&#039;s also from the Ninth District (San Franciscan, too!), so there&#039;s a good chance he&#039;ll vote in our favour. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim (aka Prup) &#8212; I&#039;m going to have to disagree with you on this one. </p>
<p>Sotomayor, once all the kerfuffle about her &quot;wise Latina&quot; quip died down, got a slam dunk 68-31 confirmation by the Senate. If more centrists like her are on the bench, they&#039;ll counterbalance the bigots on the court (Scalia, Scalito, and Thomas). </p>
<p>I think Kennedy will vote on our side, because I he voted to block both A2 (Romer v Evans) and Lawrence v Texas, and in fact wrote the majority opinion for both decisions! But we shall see once it reaches the Court. </p>
<p>Kennedy&#039;s also from the Ninth District (San Franciscan, too!), so there&#039;s a good chance he&#039;ll vote in our favour.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207268</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207268</guid>
		<description>And I just LOVE Judge Walker&#039;s reference to the pot calling the kettle black! PRICELESS!! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I just LOVE Judge Walker&#039;s reference to the pot calling the kettle black! PRICELESS!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207267</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207267</guid>
		<description>Barb, love the addition to your name! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barb, love the addition to your name!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronnie</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207266</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207266</guid>
		<description>Can we do that Callie?....can every LGBT American join together in a class action suit to sue for defamation of character? 
 
I had that same thought......and I would totally be up to doing that. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can we do that Callie?&#8230;.can every LGBT American join together in a class action suit to sue for defamation of character? </p>
<p>I had that same thought&#8230;&#8230;and I would totally be up to doing that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207265</link>
		<dc:creator>B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207265</guid>
		<description>DonG&#039;s comment  about a law being passed due to animus may be too restrictive.  If you look at  &lt;a href=&quot;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=U10179&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?...&lt;/a&gt; you can find the Supreme Court decision.  The majority&#039;s opinion included the following: &quot;A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. &#039;[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws&#039; means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.&quot; Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534  (1973).&#039;&quot; 
 
So, it might be sufficient to show animus on the part of the people who drafted or filed Prop 8, not the voters who passed it.  Of course, there is a perfect witness for that - WIlliam Tam, who was one of the five individuals who filed Proposition EIght. 
 
This could lead to a narrow ruling where Proposition Eight in invalidated because of compelling evidence of animus on the part of those who filed it and the animus shown by a string of defamatory advertisements.  If so, it might not be directly applicable elsewhere, but would create a disincentive to libel gays and lesbians in the future.  Guess we&#039;ll have to wait to see what happens. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DonG&#039;s comment  about a law being passed due to animus may be too restrictive.  If you look at  <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=U10179" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?&#8230;</a> you can find the Supreme Court decision.  The majority&#039;s opinion included the following: &quot;A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. &#039;[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws&#039; means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.&quot; Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534  (1973).&#039;&quot; </p>
<p>So, it might be sufficient to show animus on the part of the people who drafted or filed Prop 8, not the voters who passed it.  Of course, there is a perfect witness for that &#8211; WIlliam Tam, who was one of the five individuals who filed Proposition EIght. </p>
<p>This could lead to a narrow ruling where Proposition Eight in invalidated because of compelling evidence of animus on the part of those who filed it and the animus shown by a string of defamatory advertisements.  If so, it might not be directly applicable elsewhere, but would create a disincentive to libel gays and lesbians in the future.  Guess we&#039;ll have to wait to see what happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/26/liveblogging-day-11-part-iii/#comment-207264</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prop8trialtracker.com/?p=1441#comment-207264</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s indulge ourselves in a little optimism and say that we do win this round. Then it gets appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. What happens in the meantime? In that short window could SSM be the law of the land? Could same sex couples get married at least in CA? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#039;s indulge ourselves in a little optimism and say that we do win this round. Then it gets appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. What happens in the meantime? In that short window could SSM be the law of the land? Could same sex couples get married at least in CA?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

