Comments on: Mind-NOMingly boring rally in Harrisburg

By: John

John — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:13:35 +0000

Regarding the rally, where were the pro-same-sex “marriage” people?
According to the newspaper, there was a pride event in Harrisburg with 8,000 people present two weeks ago.
Where are all those people? Not interested?
50 out of 8,000 – That’s not even one percent.

By: Ahab

Ahab — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:31:09 +0000

The NOM rally in Harrisburg might have been dull and uninspiring, but the counter-protest across the street was lively! About 50 same-sex marriage supporters gathered at the corner of Third and State Street to protest NOM, and the spirit of the group was vibrant and indomitable.

Here’s my account of the Harrisburg NOM rally, if you’re interested: http://republic-of-gilead.blogspot.com/2010/08/todays-nom-rally-in-harrisburg.html

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:24:43 +0000

I made mention of this struggle over the controlling opinions yesterday in your article describing Proponents appeal brief sent to the 9th. It’s been talked to death online – this insistence that Baker is controlling. I’m pretty sure you’ll find that Walker dismissed Baker as controlling in that Summary Judgement phase.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:20:31 +0000

Timothy, I think your answer might be in the Motion For Summary Judgement which was way early in the legal proceedings.

If I remember it correctly, it was in that phase of the case that the controlling opinions were set forth by the court.

It’s here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/2009-10-14-hearing-transcript/

By: ron

ron — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:58:40 +0000

“I am not certain why both Judge Walker and the Proponents have not referenced this case.”

I’m no legal expert but my understanding is that a decision by the 8th circuit would only be binding within that circuit. So it would be natural for Walker not to reference it (and a fallacy for proponents to claim he wasn’t following precedent).