<?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: Will DOJ respond today in appeal of DOMA?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:07:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/comment-page-1#comment-80701</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27233#comment-80701</guid>
		<description>An appeal was just filed by all defendants.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An appeal was just filed by all defendants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K in VA</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/comment-page-1#comment-80691</link>
		<dc:creator>K in VA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:09:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27233#comment-80691</guid>
		<description>Stephen:

If marriages in any state get Federal recognition, then married couples who reside in that state get Federal recognition, regardless of the other state (or country) in which the marriage was performed. If you were married in Canada and live in Massachusetts now, then Massachusetts recognizes your marriage.

If Federal recognition comes, though, in the short term it would only apply if you remained within state bounds. So, if you live in Massachusetts, don&#039;t cross the state line.

If the case up and we win in the Circuit court, them married couples from Massachusetts could travel safely in or even move to another state in the circuit that allows marriage to be performed.

(Gee, ain&#039;t life simpler for straight people!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen:</p>
<p>If marriages in any state get Federal recognition, then married couples who reside in that state get Federal recognition, regardless of the other state (or country) in which the marriage was performed. If you were married in Canada and live in Massachusetts now, then Massachusetts recognizes your marriage.</p>
<p>If Federal recognition comes, though, in the short term it would only apply if you remained within state bounds. So, if you live in Massachusetts, don&#8217;t cross the state line.</p>
<p>If the case up and we win in the Circuit court, them married couples from Massachusetts could travel safely in or even move to another state in the circuit that allows marriage to be performed.</p>
<p>(Gee, ain&#8217;t life simpler for straight people!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/comment-page-1#comment-80689</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27233#comment-80689</guid>
		<description>What does this do for American citizens in Canadian marriages?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does this do for American citizens in Canadian marriages?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K in VA</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/comment-page-1#comment-80686</link>
		<dc:creator>K in VA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27233#comment-80686</guid>
		<description>No, today&#039;s the day for the state&#039;s case -- Mass. v. HHS. Gill v. OPM (the GLAD case) is due next week.

However, the assemption has been that DOJ would file both on the same day, given the similarities in the two cases and, persumably, to reduce outrage to one day instead of two.

So, yes, I think we should stay tuned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, today&#8217;s the day for the state&#8217;s case &#8212; Mass. v. HHS. Gill v. OPM (the GLAD case) is due next week.</p>
<p>However, the assemption has been that DOJ would file both on the same day, given the similarities in the two cases and, persumably, to reduce outrage to one day instead of two.</p>
<p>So, yes, I think we should stay tuned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaveM</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/12/27233/comment-page-1#comment-80684</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27233#comment-80684</guid>
		<description>I think there&#039;s another 5 days.  The original judgment issued on August 12 was superseded by an Amended Judgment issued on August 17.  I think that reset the clock.
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/gill-amended-judgment-8-2010.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there&#8217;s another 5 days.  The original judgment issued on August 12 was superseded by an Amended Judgment issued on August 17.  I think that reset the clock.<br />
<a href="http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/gill-amended-judgment-8-2010.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/gill-amended-judgment-8-2010.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
