<?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: Prop 8 Proponents Appeal Denial of Protective Order</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawdork.net/2009/10/15/prop-8-proponents-appeal-denial-of-protective-order/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/10/15/prop-8-proponents-appeal-denial-of-protective-order/</link>
	<description>Same dork, new year!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:26:26 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: FlexSF</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/10/15/prop-8-proponents-appeal-denial-of-protective-order/#comment-5118</link>
		<dc:creator>FlexSF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3877#comment-5118</guid>
		<description>Yesterday, Walker agreed with Olson, in that if the proponents attempt to delay the January trial, Olson will resubmit the request for an injunction against  prop 8. Walker initially denied this request until a speedy trial could prove Proposition 8&#039;s constitutionality. So, we may resume our practice of marriage equality, in California, very soon!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, Walker agreed with Olson, in that if the proponents attempt to delay the January trial, Olson will resubmit the request for an injunction against  prop 8. Walker initially denied this request until a speedy trial could prove Proposition 8&#8217;s constitutionality. So, we may resume our practice of marriage equality, in California, very soon!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
