<?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: Couple recognition, state by state, mid-2011 update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699</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: maddox</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97381</link>
		<dc:creator>maddox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 02:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97381</guid>
		<description>Also I must point out that even if all 50 states were to allow Same Sex Marriage &quot;on the same terms as heterosexual marriage&quot; unless it is recognized on a federal level (ie no more DOMA) those rights will never be the same, especially important ones like immigration. 

As Tim pointed out, &quot;separate but equal&quot; never is equal.

I would also really like to see a &quot;prediction&quot; of this map in 5, 10, and 20 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also I must point out that even if all 50 states were to allow Same Sex Marriage &#8220;on the same terms as heterosexual marriage&#8221; unless it is recognized on a federal level (ie no more DOMA) those rights will never be the same, especially important ones like immigration. </p>
<p>As Tim pointed out, &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; never is equal.</p>
<p>I would also really like to see a &#8220;prediction&#8221; of this map in 5, 10, and 20 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97328</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97328</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s a better &lt;a href=&quot;http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OQY73J7eHFU/Tgzab3bR9HI/AAAAAAAADe0/DzvtsSUnRow/s1600/2011%2B06%2Bmarriage%2Blaw.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;map&lt;/a&gt; I made, with states scaled by population at the 2000 census (base map from University of Michigan&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark Newman&lt;/a&gt;).

I had not noticed until now, but New Mexico is now officially the only state in the union to never pass anything one way or another on this issue -- congratulations! (now pass a civil union law, please).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a better <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OQY73J7eHFU/Tgzab3bR9HI/AAAAAAAADe0/DzvtsSUnRow/s1600/2011%2B06%2Bmarriage%2Blaw.png" rel="nofollow">map</a> I made, with states scaled by population at the 2000 census (base map from University of Michigan&#8217;s <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/" rel="nofollow">Mark Newman</a>).</p>
<p>I had not noticed until now, but New Mexico is now officially the only state in the union to never pass anything one way or another on this issue &#8212; congratulations! (now pass a civil union law, please).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Theo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97313</link>
		<dc:creator>Theo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97313</guid>
		<description>@Tim Kincaid:

No problem!  Glad I could help clear that up.  

@Ocono:

CA recognizes gay marriages from other states, but only such marriages entered into prior to November 4, 2008.  After that date, no SSMs are recognized, regardless of where the SSMs were entered into.

I am sure that CA keeps annual divorce statistics like every other state, and I would strongly suspect that they break out the same-sex divorces.  However, while I have seen statistics on gay divorce in the Netherlands, Vermont, and Canada, I have not seen anything on CA.  A study or report may be out there, but I haven&#039;t seen it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tim Kincaid:</p>
<p>No problem!  Glad I could help clear that up.  </p>
<p>@Ocono:</p>
<p>CA recognizes gay marriages from other states, but only such marriages entered into prior to November 4, 2008.  After that date, no SSMs are recognized, regardless of where the SSMs were entered into.</p>
<p>I am sure that CA keeps annual divorce statistics like every other state, and I would strongly suspect that they break out the same-sex divorces.  However, while I have seen statistics on gay divorce in the Netherlands, Vermont, and Canada, I have not seen anything on CA.  A study or report may be out there, but I haven&#8217;t seen it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97309</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97309</guid>
		<description>draNgNon,

Well, no, it&#039;s not &quot;any person or institution who feels like ignoring it.&quot;  The only folks who can ignore civil unions are churches and church-run groups.

And just how often do you need recognition from churches and church-run groups?  Hospitals can&#039;t ignore it if they accept Medicare.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>draNgNon,</p>
<p>Well, no, it&#8217;s not &#8220;any person or institution who feels like ignoring it.&#8221;  The only folks who can ignore civil unions are churches and church-run groups.</p>
<p>And just how often do you need recognition from churches and church-run groups?  Hospitals can&#8217;t ignore it if they accept Medicare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy (TRiG)</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97307</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy (TRiG)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97307</guid>
		<description>Well, the intended effect of DOMA is that full marriage equality is unattainable anywhere in the USA. Arguably, the UK&#039;s civil unions are better than the marriages in those US states which allow them.

Does California recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

TRiG.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the intended effect of DOMA is that full marriage equality is unattainable anywhere in the USA. Arguably, the UK&#8217;s civil unions are better than the marriages in those US states which allow them.</p>
<p>Does California recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?</p>
<p>TRiG.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97298</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97298</guid>
		<description>Theo

Sorry... that &quot;nearly&quot; should have been in both or neither.

I&#039;m using &quot;all the rights&quot; although I know someone will quibble and point out some minor distinction.  And the truth is that minor distinctions can occur even when the intent is exact duplication.  It is part of the nature of &quot;separate but equal&quot; that equality is elusive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theo</p>
<p>Sorry&#8230; that &#8220;nearly&#8221; should have been in both or neither.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m using &#8220;all the rights&#8221; although I know someone will quibble and point out some minor distinction.  And the truth is that minor distinctions can occur even when the intent is exact duplication.  It is part of the nature of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; that equality is elusive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: occono</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97294</link>
		<dc:creator>occono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97294</guid>
		<description>Is there any stats on how many of the 18,000 are still intact? I remember reading some people saying they&#039;d divorce if Prop 8 was upheld, as they didn&#039;t want to be in that situation.

Also, what is the deal with the law they passed about marriages in other states/countries from before Prop 8?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any stats on how many of the 18,000 are still intact? I remember reading some people saying they&#8217;d divorce if Prop 8 was upheld, as they didn&#8217;t want to be in that situation.</p>
<p>Also, what is the deal with the law they passed about marriages in other states/countries from before Prop 8?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PlatePlanner</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97290</link>
		<dc:creator>PlatePlanner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97290</guid>
		<description>&quot;Marriage on the same terms as heterosexual marriage&quot; is not even close to a true statement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Marriage on the same terms as heterosexual marriage&#8221; is not even close to a true statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Theo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97268</link>
		<dc:creator>Theo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97268</guid>
		<description>I am really confused by your list.  It is my understanding that domestic partnerships in CA, WA, OR, and NV are every bit as comprehensive as &quot;civil unions&quot; in the other states.  In fact, Washington&#039;s Referendum 71 was regularly referred to as &quot;marriage in all but name&quot;.  What rights are available in a DE or HI civil union that are not available in a CA or WA domestic partnership?

On the comments above about CA:  the 18,000 couples are fully married and will remain so until death or divorce do they part.  The real significance of this is that the &quot;definition of marriage&quot; has been changed in California for the past 3 years.  It doesn&#039;t matter if there are 18,000 married gay couples, 1,800, or 18.  The definition is still altered.  Yet oddly enough, neither NOM nor the Prop 8 proponents are tracking societal breakdown in the state, nor are they taking any steps to do a clean-up proposition to dissolve the 18,000 gay marriages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am really confused by your list.  It is my understanding that domestic partnerships in CA, WA, OR, and NV are every bit as comprehensive as &#8220;civil unions&#8221; in the other states.  In fact, Washington&#8217;s Referendum 71 was regularly referred to as &#8220;marriage in all but name&#8221;.  What rights are available in a DE or HI civil union that are not available in a CA or WA domestic partnership?</p>
<p>On the comments above about CA:  the 18,000 couples are fully married and will remain so until death or divorce do they part.  The real significance of this is that the &#8220;definition of marriage&#8221; has been changed in California for the past 3 years.  It doesn&#8217;t matter if there are 18,000 married gay couples, 1,800, or 18.  The definition is still altered.  Yet oddly enough, neither NOM nor the Prop 8 proponents are tracking societal breakdown in the state, nor are they taking any steps to do a clean-up proposition to dissolve the 18,000 gay marriages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erica</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/06/29/34699/comment-page-1#comment-97263</link>
		<dc:creator>Erica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34699#comment-97263</guid>
		<description>The US is like a slow, ambling dinosaur on this issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US is like a slow, ambling dinosaur on this issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
