<?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: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/</link>
	<description>A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:25:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Acts Of Faith Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-344524</link>
		<dc:creator>Acts Of Faith Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 03:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-344524</guid>
		<description>Today&#039;s Conversation Prop 8 Fight Rages On: What About Trans Women and Men? &lt;a href=&quot;http://snipurl.com/iv6sw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snipurl.com/iv6sw&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#39;s Conversation Prop 8 Fight Rages On: What About Trans Women and Men? <a href="http://snipurl.com/iv6sw" rel="nofollow">http://snipurl.com/iv6sw</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: heartsandflowers</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-206175</link>
		<dc:creator>heartsandflowers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 23:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-206175</guid>
		<description>Today&#039;s Conversation Prop 8 Fight Rages On: What About Trans Women and Men? &lt;a href=&quot;http://snipurl.com/iv6sw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://snipurl.com/iv6sw&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#39;s Conversation Prop 8 Fight Rages On: What About Trans Women and Men? <a href="http://snipurl.com/iv6sw" rel="nofollow">http://snipurl.com/iv6sw</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whiterosebuddy</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205875</link>
		<dc:creator>whiterosebuddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 03:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205875</guid>
		<description>The sensible course would be to let sleeping dogs lay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The sensible course would be to let sleeping dogs lay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whiterosebuddy</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205874</link>
		<dc:creator>whiterosebuddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 03:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205874</guid>
		<description>A legally binding majority one.&lt;br&gt;Based on the majority of the votes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A legally binding majority one.<br />Based on the majority of the votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whiterosebuddy</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205873</link>
		<dc:creator>whiterosebuddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 03:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205873</guid>
		<description>No. It is a strawman, red herring argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No. It is a strawman, red herring argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TerranceDC</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205860</link>
		<dc:creator>TerranceDC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 03:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205860</guid>
		<description>Does this ruling make it easier to put the civil rights of minorities to a simple majority vote?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this ruling make it easier to put the civil rights of minorities to a simple majority vote?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rikyrah</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205508</link>
		<dc:creator>rikyrah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 20:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205508</guid>
		<description>AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RobM</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205439</link>
		<dc:creator>RobM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 18:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205439</guid>
		<description>I wonder what Sotomayor thinks about this ruling. I can not not see it being brought up in the confirmation hearing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder what Sotomayor thinks about this ruling. I can not not see it being brought up in the confirmation hearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luxuriate</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205420</link>
		<dc:creator>Luxuriate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 18:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205420</guid>
		<description>What kind of decision is this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What kind of decision is this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spirit_55z</title>
		<link>http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-205419</link>
		<dc:creator>spirit_55z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 18:20:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=11638#comment-205419</guid>
		<description>California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;By Ashley Surdin&lt;br&gt;Washington Post Staff Writer &lt;br&gt;Tuesday, May 26, 2009; 1:15 PM &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;LOS ANGELES, May 26 -- The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state. &lt;br&gt;The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married. &lt;br&gt;The ruling comes after three months of deliberation and nearly a year after the court struck down state laws that similarly banned such marriages. Then, the court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional and that the unions were a &quot;basic civil right.&quot; This time, factoring in a successful Nov. 4 ballot measure that defines marriage as a union &quot;between a man and a woman&quot; in the state&#039;s constitution, which trumps state laws, the court revealed its hesitancy to override the will of the people. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But Tuesday&#039;s ruling, which has been anticipated for months, hardly settles the matter. The recourse for gay rights activists now is to put the matter to voters again through their own initiative or take the matter to federal court. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the eve of the ruling, Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal, which is representing one of the plaintiffs in the case, said advocates would look to another ballot measure. &quot;All the legal and policy and political groups feel very strongly that the sensible course would be another ballot measure to undo Prop. 8,&quot; she said. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s unclear how voters would respond to another ballot proposition. Some predicted that the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Eastern states would sway California&#039;s highest court. Advocates hope those events would influence voters. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Read on&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600363.html?hpid=topnews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban</p>
<p>By Ashley Surdin<br />Washington Post Staff Writer <br />Tuesday, May 26, 2009; 1:15 PM </p>
<p>LOS ANGELES, May 26 &#8212; The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state. <br />The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married. <br />The ruling comes after three months of deliberation and nearly a year after the court struck down state laws that similarly banned such marriages. Then, the court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional and that the unions were a &#8220;basic civil right.&#8221; This time, factoring in a successful Nov. 4 ballot measure that defines marriage as a union &#8220;between a man and a woman&#8221; in the state&#39;s constitution, which trumps state laws, the court revealed its hesitancy to override the will of the people. </p>
<p>But Tuesday&#39;s ruling, which has been anticipated for months, hardly settles the matter. The recourse for gay rights activists now is to put the matter to voters again through their own initiative or take the matter to federal court. </p>
<p>On the eve of the ruling, Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal, which is representing one of the plaintiffs in the case, said advocates would look to another ballot measure. &#8220;All the legal and policy and political groups feel very strongly that the sensible course would be another ballot measure to undo Prop. 8,&#8221; she said. </p>
<p>It&#39;s unclear how voters would respond to another ballot proposition. Some predicted that the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Eastern states would sway California&#39;s highest court. Advocates hope those events would influence voters. </p>
<p>Read on</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600363.html?hpid=topnews" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar.." rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
