<?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: New Hampshire Would be the Sixth What, Exactly?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:31:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40799</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Kraemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 17:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40799</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t believe any court ruling ever found Jack Baker&#039;s 1970 marriage to be invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court merely said it was a state matter and they did not declare the marriage to be invalid. The state of Minnesota reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by passing an anti-gay marriage law, which can&#039;t be retroactive under ordinary constitutional law. This is why Jack Baker still believes his marriage is valid. (He also legally adopted his partner.)

I agree the above point is a historical nitpick, but there needs to be another list of legally questionable gay marriages, which would include the early marriage claims of Rev. Troy Perry, which were not clearly documented as Jack Baker&#039;s marriage.

Back in 1970, most gay liberationists thought Jack Baker was crazy to say gay marriage was the most important milestone in gay rights. Back then, hippies and feminists were rejecting straight marriage as being oppressive. Why would gays want to marry instead of having sexual freedom?

We now know that Jack Baker was right!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t believe any court ruling ever found Jack Baker&#8217;s 1970 marriage to be invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court merely said it was a state matter and they did not declare the marriage to be invalid. The state of Minnesota reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by passing an anti-gay marriage law, which can&#8217;t be retroactive under ordinary constitutional law. This is why Jack Baker still believes his marriage is valid. (He also legally adopted his partner.)</p>
<p>I agree the above point is a historical nitpick, but there needs to be another list of legally questionable gay marriages, which would include the early marriage claims of Rev. Troy Perry, which were not clearly documented as Jack Baker&#8217;s marriage.</p>
<p>Back in 1970, most gay liberationists thought Jack Baker was crazy to say gay marriage was the most important milestone in gay rights. Back then, hippies and feminists were rejecting straight marriage as being oppressive. Why would gays want to marry instead of having sexual freedom?</p>
<p>We now know that Jack Baker was right!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40379</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 18:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40379</guid>
		<description>aratina,

Thank you for reminding us of the Brause case.

But I believe that that this case only was decided at the Superior Court Level.  The Alaska Constitution was amended before the appeal at the Supreme Court level was heard.

But this does indeed illustrate the difficulty in making lists and in the language surrounding such lists.  I said &quot;the courts&quot;, but wasn&#039;t clear that I meant &quot;the states&#039; highest courts&quot;.  

Had I been inclusive of all court decisions I would have to include those - such as New York - in which a lower court found for marriage but which was overturned by a higher court.

Which would also be an interesting list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>aratina,</p>
<p>Thank you for reminding us of the Brause case.</p>
<p>But I believe that that this case only was decided at the Superior Court Level.  The Alaska Constitution was amended before the appeal at the Supreme Court level was heard.</p>
<p>But this does indeed illustrate the difficulty in making lists and in the language surrounding such lists.  I said &#8220;the courts&#8221;, but wasn&#8217;t clear that I meant &#8220;the states&#8217; highest courts&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Had I been inclusive of all court decisions I would have to include those &#8211; such as New York &#8211; in which a lower court found for marriage but which was overturned by a higher court.</p>
<p>Which would also be an interesting list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aratina</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40376</link>
		<dc:creator>aratina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 18:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40376</guid>
		<description>You forgot Alaska as one of the first states to go pro-gay when its court decided that same-sex marriage was a fundamental human right following Hawaii&#039;s court (see Brause v. Alaska), a finding that was supported by Alaska&#039;s Democratic governor but overturned immediately by a popular constitutional amendment in November 1998. Should read:

The order in which courts have found that states must provide marriage and/or all its rights and benefits to same-sex couples:

1. Hawaii 1993/1997 (reversed by Constitutional amendment)
2. Alaska 1998 (reversed by constitutional amendment)
3. Vermont 1999
4. Massachusetts 2003
5. New Jersey 2006
6. California 2008 (perhaps reversed by Constitutional amendment)
7. Connecticut 2008
8. Iowa 2009</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You forgot Alaska as one of the first states to go pro-gay when its court decided that same-sex marriage was a fundamental human right following Hawaii&#8217;s court (see Brause v. Alaska), a finding that was supported by Alaska&#8217;s Democratic governor but overturned immediately by a popular constitutional amendment in November 1998. Should read:</p>
<p>The order in which courts have found that states must provide marriage and/or all its rights and benefits to same-sex couples:</p>
<p>1. Hawaii 1993/1997 (reversed by Constitutional amendment)<br />
2. Alaska 1998 (reversed by constitutional amendment)<br />
3. Vermont 1999<br />
4. Massachusetts 2003<br />
5. New Jersey 2006<br />
6. California 2008 (perhaps reversed by Constitutional amendment)<br />
7. Connecticut 2008<br />
8. Iowa 2009</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40374</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 18:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40374</guid>
		<description>Thomas, thanks for so very many years of activism.  I didn&#039;t include the McConnell/Baker marriage because the courts refused to recognize it.  I also do not include the San Francisco Valentines Day marriages for the same reason.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas, thanks for so very many years of activism.  I didn&#8217;t include the McConnell/Baker marriage because the courts refused to recognize it.  I also do not include the San Francisco Valentines Day marriages for the same reason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40305</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Kraemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 20:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40305</guid>
		<description>The order in which legal marriages were first performed should include:

1. Minnesota May 18, 1970 (one legal same-sex marriage between Michael McConnell and Jack Baker was performed. Attorney Jack Baker believes his marriage is still legally valid because laws passed years later to outlaw same-sex marriages in Minnesota can&#039;t be retroactive under ordinary constitutional law.)

See: http://thomaskraemer.blogspot.com/2008/11/life-magazine-gay-marriage-1971.html

and

Ken Bronson, &quot;A Quest for Full Equality,&quot; www.may-18-1970.org self-published May 18, 2004, p. 6-7, 48, from Ken Bronson&#039;s Web site www.may-18-1970.org on Jack Baker&#039;s marriage.

Disclosure: I was a member of Jack Baker&#039;s gay liberation group.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The order in which legal marriages were first performed should include:</p>
<p>1. Minnesota May 18, 1970 (one legal same-sex marriage between Michael McConnell and Jack Baker was performed. Attorney Jack Baker believes his marriage is still legally valid because laws passed years later to outlaw same-sex marriages in Minnesota can&#8217;t be retroactive under ordinary constitutional law.)</p>
<p>See: <a href="http://thomaskraemer.blogspot.com/2008/11/life-magazine-gay-marriage-1971.html" rel="nofollow">http://thomaskraemer.blogspot.com/2008/11/life-magazine-gay-marriage-1971.html</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p>Ken Bronson, &#8220;A Quest for Full Equality,&#8221; <a href="http://www.may-18-1970.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.may-18-1970.org</a> self-published May 18, 2004, p. 6-7, 48, from Ken Bronson&#8217;s Web site <a href="http://www.may-18-1970.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.may-18-1970.org</a> on Jack Baker&#8217;s marriage.</p>
<p>Disclosure: I was a member of Jack Baker&#8217;s gay liberation group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dyssonance</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40295</link>
		<dc:creator>Dyssonance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 16:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40295</guid>
		<description>6th state to recognize kinship ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>6th state to recognize kinship ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ephilei</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/08/11260/comment-page-1#comment-40279</link>
		<dc:creator>Ephilei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 04:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11260#comment-40279</guid>
		<description>How &#039;bout, the 6th state will same-sex marriage would be scheduled to be available?

Of course, CA any day could say same-sex marriage is back, screwing up every ranking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How &#8217;bout, the 6th state will same-sex marriage would be scheduled to be available?</p>
<p>Of course, CA any day could say same-sex marriage is back, screwing up every ranking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
