<?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: It&#8217;s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:33:44 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Decisive Indecisiveness &#187; Gay Marriage in California!</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-12147</link>
		<dc:creator>Decisive Indecisiveness &#187; Gay Marriage in California!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-12147</guid>
		<description>[...] know you&#8217;ve all probably seen the news elsewhere, but I just couldn&#8217;t resist posting about it. So [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] know you&#8217;ve all probably seen the news elsewhere, but I just couldn&#8217;t resist posting about it. So [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-11358</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 17:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-11358</guid>
		<description>NightShayde,

While I oppose the proposed amendment, it would not rescind protections.  It would add the following language to the constitution:

&quot;Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NightShayde,</p>
<p>While I oppose the proposed amendment, it would not rescind protections.  It would add the following language to the constitution:</p>
<p>&#8220;Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NightShayde</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-11222</link>
		<dc:creator>NightShayde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 01:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-11222</guid>
		<description>Never mind - finally found the answer.  Amending California&#039;s constitution requires only a simple majority (emphasis on the &quot;simple&quot;).  Apparently wording in the proposed amendment rescinds protections in all segments of life -- financial, property rights, rights to make medical decisions for partners, hospital visitation rights -- all of it.

I really REALLY hope Californians are progressive enough to defeat the haters.  I really really fear that they&#039;re not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never mind &#8211; finally found the answer.  Amending California&#8217;s constitution requires only a simple majority (emphasis on the &#8220;simple&#8221;).  Apparently wording in the proposed amendment rescinds protections in all segments of life &#8212; financial, property rights, rights to make medical decisions for partners, hospital visitation rights &#8212; all of it.</p>
<p>I really REALLY hope Californians are progressive enough to defeat the haters.  I really really fear that they&#8217;re not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NightShayde</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-11220</link>
		<dc:creator>NightShayde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 01:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-11220</guid>
		<description>As a straight woman who is totally pro-gay rights, I&#039;m thrilled with the court&#039;s ruling.  I saw a t-shirt online a couple of months ago that said: &quot;Equal Rights should be guaranteed - not voted on.&quot;  I can&#039;t agree more.  Discrimination is wrong.  Whether it&#039;s supported by a majority or a minority, it&#039;s wrong.  Whether it&#039;s based in tradition or religion or ignorance, or any combination thereof, it&#039;s wrong.

Would the proposed California Constitutional Amendment (if it even gets on the ballot) have to be passed by a 2/3 majority, or does it only have to be a simple majority?  Anyone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a straight woman who is totally pro-gay rights, I&#8217;m thrilled with the court&#8217;s ruling.  I saw a t-shirt online a couple of months ago that said: &#8220;Equal Rights should be guaranteed &#8211; not voted on.&#8221;  I can&#8217;t agree more.  Discrimination is wrong.  Whether it&#8217;s supported by a majority or a minority, it&#8217;s wrong.  Whether it&#8217;s based in tradition or religion or ignorance, or any combination thereof, it&#8217;s wrong.</p>
<p>Would the proposed California Constitutional Amendment (if it even gets on the ballot) have to be passed by a 2/3 majority, or does it only have to be a simple majority?  Anyone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XGW Digest: May 22, 2008 &#124; Ex-Gay Watch</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-11164</link>
		<dc:creator>XGW Digest: May 22, 2008 &#124; Ex-Gay Watch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 09:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-11164</guid>
		<description>[...] BTB covers the California same-sex marriage decision, anti-gay groups decry ruling [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] BTB covers the California same-sex marriage decision, anti-gay groups decry ruling [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buffy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-10941</link>
		<dc:creator>Buffy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-10941</guid>
		<description>Whoo-hoo!  I&#039;m going to be a married woman soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoo-hoo!  I&#8217;m going to be a married woman soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-10932</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-10932</guid>
		<description>Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!!

I have been in happy tears since 10am this morning when I started reading the Court&#039;s ruling! How joyous!!!

My partner of twelve years, and soon to be &quot;Husband&quot;, told me my eyes were severely bloodshot! Damn those tears of joy and jubilation!

Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!!

And so the Supreme Court of California has struck down Prop. 22 Remember that the Governor always stated that it was because of Prop. 22 that he claimed his hands were tied and so he was forced to veto both legislative attempts at legalizing same-sex marriage. No more Prop. 22, no more Governor veto!

Also, the following excerpt shows hope for our cause even if the Constitutional Amendment passes in November: &quot;under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!!</p>
<p>I have been in happy tears since 10am this morning when I started reading the Court&#8217;s ruling! How joyous!!!</p>
<p>My partner of twelve years, and soon to be &#8220;Husband&#8221;, told me my eyes were severely bloodshot! Damn those tears of joy and jubilation!</p>
<p>Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!! Hurray!!!!</p>
<p>And so the Supreme Court of California has struck down Prop. 22 Remember that the Governor always stated that it was because of Prop. 22 that he claimed his hands were tied and so he was forced to veto both legislative attempts at legalizing same-sex marriage. No more Prop. 22, no more Governor veto!</p>
<p>Also, the following excerpt shows hope for our cause even if the Constitutional Amendment passes in November: &#8220;under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cooner</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-10925</link>
		<dc:creator>cooner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 23:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-10925</guid>
		<description>John: As I understand it -- and giving the Governator a bit of the benefit of the doubt -- part of the reason Arnold vetoed the previous Legislative bills was because they ran counter to the 2000 marriage initiative, and as a result, would have been subject to further court cases to determine their validity. (And as I understand it, under California law, voter initiatives can generally trump legislative bills.)

By waiting for the court case already in progress to play out, it has not only accomplished the same thing as the Legislative movement, it has also trumped the 2000 marriage initiative at the same time. So now the only thing left to worry about is the possible initiative on a Constitutional amendment -- which is a big thing to worry about, yes, but here&#039;s hoping.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John: As I understand it &#8212; and giving the Governator a bit of the benefit of the doubt &#8212; part of the reason Arnold vetoed the previous Legislative bills was because they ran counter to the 2000 marriage initiative, and as a result, would have been subject to further court cases to determine their validity. (And as I understand it, under California law, voter initiatives can generally trump legislative bills.)</p>
<p>By waiting for the court case already in progress to play out, it has not only accomplished the same thing as the Legislative movement, it has also trumped the 2000 marriage initiative at the same time. So now the only thing left to worry about is the possible initiative on a Constitutional amendment &#8212; which is a big thing to worry about, yes, but here&#8217;s hoping.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kith</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-10918</link>
		<dc:creator>Kith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 23:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-10918</guid>
		<description>Okay I have to ask this question.  I&#039;ve read all 172 pages of the ruling.  A universal theme was not that California had to make gay marriage legal.  It was that California could not have a two tiered system and that under the constitution there had to be universal access to whatever California called marriage.  So if the amendment that is facing the November ballot passes and defines marriage a strictly heterosexual union without saying it is the only type of Union CA can grant, in light of this ruling wouldn&#039;t you have a situation where  CA cannot grant marriages?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay I have to ask this question.  I&#8217;ve read all 172 pages of the ruling.  A universal theme was not that California had to make gay marriage legal.  It was that California could not have a two tiered system and that under the constitution there had to be universal access to whatever California called marriage.  So if the amendment that is facing the November ballot passes and defines marriage a strictly heterosexual union without saying it is the only type of Union CA can grant, in light of this ruling wouldn&#8217;t you have a situation where  CA cannot grant marriages?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trevor</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018/comment-page-1#comment-10914</link>
		<dc:creator>Trevor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 22:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/15/2018#comment-10914</guid>
		<description>I predicted a while back that the CA Supreme Court would rule against lifting the ban.  I&#039;ve never been more thrilled to be wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I predicted a while back that the CA Supreme Court would rule against lifting the ban.  I&#8217;ve never been more thrilled to be wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
