<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ruth Institute Blog &#187; Proposition 8</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/category/proposition-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:02:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Prop 8 Decision Was No Surprise</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/07/why-prop-8-decision-was-no-surprise/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/07/why-prop-8-decision-was-no-surprise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=10123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE JAMES R. BROWNING COURTHOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA – “The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Judge Walker’s radical decision overturning Prop 8 comes as no surprise,” said Catholics for the Common Good President William B. May. “We always knew this case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/07/why-prop-8-decision-was-no-surprise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Victory in the Prop 8 Case!</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/06/another-victory-in-the-prop-8-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/06/another-victory-in-the-prop-8-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=10105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m happy to report that our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team has won yet another important legal victory for supporters of traditional marriage in California! Today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 24-page opinion REVERSING the lower court’s earlier decision to illegally release courtroom trial recordings of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/06/another-victory-in-the-prop-8-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cooper goes on offense</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/cooper-goes-on-the-offense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/cooper-goes-on-the-offense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[5:00 PM PST  (court adjourned) Cooper’s rebuttal: If the judge has an interest in the outcome, he has an obligation to reveal it. It was the plaintiffs who continually put forth evidence that 64% of gays in CA, in committed long-term relationships, would want to get married.  Hence, it is the fact that Walker was in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/cooper-goes-on-the-offense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Therese Stewart and Thompson&#8217;s rebuttal</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/therese-stewart-and-thompsons-rebuttal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/therese-stewart-and-thompsons-rebuttal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3:40 PM PST Therese Stewart: A seal order doesn’t preclude the parties from revisiting the question of whether the seal should be opened.  She seems to think that the Proponents shouldn’t have relied on this promise so seriously. Rhinehart: the potential for broadcast has been eliminated. Stewart seems to say that rule only pertains to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/therese-stewart-and-thompsons-rebuttal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thompson&#8217;s arguments</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/thompsons-arguments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/thompsons-arguments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3:05 PM, PST, Judge Hawkins: Were your clients under the impression that the tapes would be sealed forever? David Thompson: No, only for 10 years, at which time, an extension could be asked for, and possibly given. Plaintiffs want to know, what are the harms? DT says, four harms: 1.       Witness intimidation and harassment;  SCOTUS [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/thompsons-arguments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Coalition advocate, Thomas Burke</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/mediacoalition-advocate-thomas-burke/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/mediacoalition-advocate-thomas-burke/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9738</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3: 30 PM PST, Thomas Burke, from Media Coalition First brings up the claim that since Walker’s objectivity is in question, we should have access to the tapes. Rhinehart stops him and urges him to stick to the point: which is the issue of the video tapes. The guy is in over his head. Hawkins [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/mediacoalition-advocate-thomas-burke/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-game warm-ups&#8211;Prop 8 Trial</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/pre-game-warm-ups-prop-8-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/pre-game-warm-ups-prop-8-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sitting here in the federal court building at the corner of Mission and 7th in Down town SF.  Things are much calmer, both inside and outside the court, compared with other times I’ve been to these hearings.  Only a handful of people were outside at the Pre-Game warm-up Equality rally. They have the same signs [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/pre-game-warm-ups-prop-8-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Immaculate Conception and the culture of the Prop 8 trial</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-culture-of-the-prop-8-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-culture-of-the-prop-8-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Catholic Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just came from Mass in honor of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. I will soon head off to the airport to go to SF, for the Prop 8 trial.  It is fitting that this trial take place on this feast day.  I realize that many of my readers are not Catholic, and think [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/08/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-culture-of-the-prop-8-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit Hears Prop 8 Arguments Tomorrow!</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/07/9th-circuit-hears-prop-8-arguments-tomorrow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/07/9th-circuit-hears-prop-8-arguments-tomorrow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prop 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 Tomorrow afternoon beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California&#8217;s Proposition 8. The three-judge panel, while continuing to deliberate on the constitutionality of Prop 8, will additionally be hearing oral arguments on whether Judge [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/12/07/9th-circuit-hears-prop-8-arguments-tomorrow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rules Prop 8 Campaign Has Standing to Defend Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/21/court-rules-prop-8-campaign-has-standing-to-defend-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/21/court-rules-prop-8-campaign-has-standing-to-defend-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prop 8]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By William C. Duncan Last year, federal court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage. That decision is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but that court sent it over to the California Supreme Court to allow those judges to weigh in on whether state law [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/21/court-rules-prop-8-campaign-has-standing-to-defend-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NOM Commends California Supreme Court Decision Granting Standing of Proposition 8 Proponents to Defend Measure in Higher Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/17/nom-commends-california-supreme-court-decision-granting-standing-of-proposition-8-proponents-to-defend-measure-in-higher-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/17/nom-commends-california-supreme-court-decision-granting-standing-of-proposition-8-proponents-to-defend-measure-in-higher-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/11/17/nom-commends-california-supreme-court-decision-granting-standing-of-proposition-8-proponents-to-defend-measure-in-higher-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Thoughts on the Franck Articles</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/some-thoughts-on-the-franck-articles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/some-thoughts-on-the-franck-articles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prop 8]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by johnpauliiismyhero &#8230; In the first one from the Washington Post, he lays out the basic argument.  The public discourse on gay marriage has reached the point where there is no rational discourse.  In the eyes of our culture, to oppose gay marriage is tantamount to ignorance, bigotry, or hate.  Ironically, the replies he received [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/some-thoughts-on-the-franck-articles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge sides against pro-family supporters</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/judge-sides-against-pro-family-supporters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/judge-sides-against-pro-family-supporters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prop 8]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=9208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Becky Yeh One pro-family leader is calling for Christians to be courageous in their stance for biblical values in light of a ruling that exposes supporters of a California marriage law. In a ruling that ended an almost three-year legal battle, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 cannot [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/10/31/judge-sides-against-pro-family-supporters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No standing: what marriage radicals really think of “the people”</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/19/no-standing-what-marriage-radicals-really-think-of-%e2%80%9cthe-people%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/19/no-standing-what-marriage-radicals-really-think-of-%e2%80%9cthe-people%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newsletter articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics and marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prop 8]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Jennifer Roback Morse This article was first published at Mercatornet.com September 16, 2011. Last week’s hearing in the California Supreme Court on whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the measure in court seemed to go well for the defenders of natural marriage. But another issue lies beneath the surface of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/19/no-standing-what-marriage-radicals-really-think-of-%e2%80%9cthe-people%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>122</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From my notes in the Prop 8 courtroom</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/10/from-my-notes-in-the-prop-8-courtroom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/10/from-my-notes-in-the-prop-8-courtroom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I went to San Francisco last week to cover the Prop 8 trial, I indicated that I would be watching for something specific from the Marriage Redefiners.  Will they try to distinguish their case: That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/10/from-my-notes-in-the-prop-8-courtroom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, Rob Reiner is bankrolling the Prop 8 legal challenges</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/yes-rob-reiner-is-bankrolling-the-prop-8-legal-challenges/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/yes-rob-reiner-is-bankrolling-the-prop-8-legal-challenges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My earlier post, called &#8220;Rob Reiner, the Founder of the Feast,&#8221; prompted a call for citations.  How do I know that Rob Reiner is bankrolling the Prop 8 legal challenges?  Basically, because he has said so, and because Ted Olsen thanked him for it. Look at the website for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/yes-rob-reiner-is-bankrolling-the-prop-8-legal-challenges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prop 8 hearing podcasts</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/prop-8-hearing-podcasts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/prop-8-hearing-podcasts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Norrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alliance Defense Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Austin Nimocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapman University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Eastman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dr J was in San Francisco yesterday for the Prop 8 hearing (to determine standing) in California&#8217;s Supreme Court.  While she was there, she was able to interview John Eastman (professor of constitutional law at Chapman University&#8217;s school of law and founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence) and Austin Nimocks (senior legal counsel [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/prop-8-hearing-podcasts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Same-sex &#8216;marriage&#8217; — judge&#8217;s &#8216;parting gift&#8217; for California?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/same-sex-marriage-%e2%80%94-judges-parting-gift-for-california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/same-sex-marriage-%e2%80%94-judges-parting-gift-for-california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From One News Now: Same-sex ‘marriage’ — judge’s ‘parting gift’ for California? In the wake of yesterday’s hearing before the California Supreme Court, a pro-family leader is optimistic that supporters of Proposition 8 will have the right to defend the traditional marriage measure in court. A majority of California voters passed the referendum in 2008, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/07/same-sex-marriage-%e2%80%94-judges-parting-gift-for-california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Over-reaching?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/over-reaching/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/over-reaching/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:45:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The justices seemed to be concerned about over-reaching on both sides. On one side, they asked, suppose we adopt your theory, Mr. Olsen, and rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing  to defend the measure?  What will be left of the initiative process? On the other side, they asked Chuck Cooper, suppose we adopt [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/over-reaching/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>quick take on the prop 8 hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/quick-take-on-the-prop-8-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/quick-take-on-the-prop-8-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They did indeed take our electronic equipment when we entered the courtroom.  Our friends over at the NOM blog were watching the broadcast on TV. They were able to comment in real time, and I wasn&#8217;t, even though they were in DC and I was right in the courtroom! Oh well! I really appreciate everyone coming [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/09/06/quick-take-on-the-prop-8-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 8/20 queries in 0.034 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2012-02-11 00:16:37 -->
