<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel> 

	<title>Comments on: Comments on 2334</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334//</link>
	<description>Comments on MetaFilter post Comments on 2334</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:34:28 -0800</pubDate>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:34:28 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>

	<item>
		<title>Post number 2334</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334/</link>	
		<description>&lt;a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000701/ts/life_gays_dc_2.html"&gt;While you were sleeping, gay people were getting married&lt;/a&gt;  in Vermont. Beginning at midnight last night, people began flocking to their town clerks [&lt;a href=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000629/us/civil_unions_clerks_1.html&gt;some of them&lt;/a&gt;] and signing &lt;a href=http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000628/2407361s.htm&gt;pieces of paper&lt;/a&gt; that would allow them to visit their partners in the hospital and file state taxes jointly. While I have yet to see a news photo of a happy couple [no thanks to &lt;a href=http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20000701/us/civil_unions_the_first_dli.html&gt;the AP&lt;/a&gt;] I&apos;m sure today is going to be an interesting day in town.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">post:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.2334</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 03:59:54 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jessamyn</dc:creator>		<category>civilunions</category>		<category>vermont</category>		<category>gay</category>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: Ezrael</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334/#11635</link>	
		<description>Hey, good for them! Now they have the right to...uhm, okay, so none of that stuff really appeals to me. Still, if it&apos;s what they want, good for them! Personally, I&apos;d rather be dragged through a mine field by incontinent horses, but that&apos;s just me.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.2334-11635</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:34:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ezrael</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: palegirl</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334/#11653</link>	
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news_photos?p=civil+union&amp;c=news_photos&amp;n=10&quot; title=&quot;yahoo news photo search results: civil union&quot;&gt;news photos of happy couples&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.2334-11653</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:12:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>palegirl</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: Sapphireblue</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334/#11663</link>	
		<description>The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/01/vermont.sex/index.html&quot;&gt;CNN version of the story&lt;/a&gt; mentions that a lesbian couple who were among the couples that filed the suit that led to the civil-unions law have been together 28 years. Since their mid-20s. Which can&apos;t be broadened into any sort of generalization and I won&apos;t try... but I&apos;d have to work to come up with any married couples I know who&apos;ve made it that long.

Warms my heart that now they can have their piece of paper :)</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.2334-11663</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:15:09 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sapphireblue</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: baylink</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2334/#11801</link>	
		<description>Indeed it does.  

My favorite part will be seeing the recalcitrant clerks get fired (and I hope we get at least one of them arrested), and watching the state governments take Congress to court over it.  That will land in the lap of the Supremes -- I believe that it *has* to, and if I&apos;m not mistaken, it&apos;s the only sort of case they are *not* allowed to turn down.

Mike?  &apos;zat right?</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.2334-11801</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:52:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>baylink</dc:creator>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
