<?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>MetaFilter posts tagged with marriage and samesex</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/marriage+samesex</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'marriage' and 'samesex' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:24:24 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:24:24 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>In Washington State, echoes of Proposition 8</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/82105/In%2DWashington%2DState%2Dechoes%2Dof%2DProposition%2D8</link>
		<description> In September of 2004, a Superior Court in Washington state ruled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seattlepi.com/local/189761_samesex07ww.html&quot;&gt;the state&apos;s 1998 &quot;Defense of Marriage&quot; act unconstitutional&lt;/a&gt;, a ruling which would have allowed the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In 2006, the state Supreme Court issued in an opinion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/andersen-v-king-county.html&quot;&gt;Andersen v. King County&lt;/a&gt; overturning the lower court&apos;s ruling, noting &quot;that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf&quot;&gt;our decision&lt;/a&gt; &lt;small&gt;[pdf]&lt;/small&gt; is not based on an independent
determination of what we believe the law should be.&quot; The legislature, in response, &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004278712_webdomestic12.html&quot;&gt;created the state-registered domestic partnership&lt;/a&gt; in 2007, expanding many (but not all) marriage-related rights to same-sex couples. Last month, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=1236&amp;newsType=1&quot;&gt;a new law expanded the partnership&lt;/a&gt; to cover the remaining rights, creating an &quot;all-but-marriage&quot; partnership.
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
This year, the Washington Values Alliance has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.valuesaction.org/index.php/information-center/press-releases/127-coalition-files-referendum-71-to-protect-marriage-and-children.html&quot;&gt;filed Referendum 71&lt;/a&gt;, which would put this expansion to a ballot vote. The referendum will need 120,000 signatures to make it to the ballot. &lt;a href=&quot;http://whosigned.org/&quot;&gt;WhoSigned.org intends to make these signatures searchable&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/78197/Google-Political-Transparency&quot;&gt;Predictably&lt;/a&gt;, this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/170008.asp&quot;&gt;creating&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009286787_webpartnership01.html&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/01/publishing-their-names&quot;&gt;controversy&lt;/a&gt;. In the meantime, Referendum 71 doesn&apos;t seem to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washblog.com/story/2009/5/5/134834/1359&quot;&gt;finding much support&lt;/a&gt; from likely allies. If it does make it to the ballot, voters hoping to maintain rights for same-sex couples should vote &lt;i&gt;yes&lt;/i&gt; to uphold the law as signed. Confused? &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/05/confused-about-referendum-choice/&quot;&gt;The Secretary of State&apos;s office understands&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;br&gt;Bonus Washington state ballot item: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007&quot;&gt;Initiative 957&lt;/a&gt; (which never made it to the ballot) would have required couples to procreate within three years of marriage or face annulment. </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.82105</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:24:24 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>71</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>gayrights</category>
		<category>local</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>prop8</category>
		<category>proposition8</category>
		<category>referendum</category>
		<category>referendum71</category>
		<category>rights</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>state</category>
		<category>washington</category>
		<category>washingtonvaluesalliance</category>
		<category>whosigned</category>
		<category>yeson71waitnowaityes</category>
		<dc:creator>0xFCAF</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Vermont legalizes same sex marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/80647/Vermont%2Dlegalizes%2Dsame%2Dsex%2Dmarriage</link>
		<description> Today, the Vermont Legislature &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016&quot;&gt;voted to override Gov. Jim Douglas&apos; veto of a bill allowing same sex marriage&lt;/a&gt;, making Vermont the 4th state in the nation (and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/1001/NEWS&quot;&gt;second state this week&lt;/a&gt;) to legalize same sex marriage. Vermont is the first state to do it legislatively; it happened in the other three states via court ruling.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.80647</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:18:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>equality</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>iowa</category>
		<category>lesbian</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>vermont</category>
		<dc:creator>booksherpa</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>I wanna be Snow White, and my bf will be Prince Charming, and we&apos;ll be married by the Evil Queen!</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/60112/I%2Dwanna%2Dbe%2DSnow%2DWhite%2Dand%2Dmy%2Dbf%2Dwill%2Dbe%2DPrince%2DCharming%2Dand%2Dwell%2Dbe%2Dmarried%2Dby%2Dthe%2DEvil%2DQueen</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://pandagon.net/2007/04/06/fairy-tales-now-come-true-for-gay-couples-at-disney/"&gt;Fairy Tale Weddings for all --&lt;/a&gt; Disney, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/03/031507disney.htm&quot;&gt;under fire for discriminating at its parks&lt;/a&gt;, opens up its popular (and expensive!) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.disneyweddings.go.com/site/gate/index.jsp&quot;&gt; Fairy Tale Weddings and Honeymoons&lt;/a&gt; to same-sex couples.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.60112</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:59:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>commerce</category>
		<category>Disney</category>
		<category>equality</category>
		<category>equalrights</category>
		<category>GLBT</category>
		<category>kitsch</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>spectacles</category>
		<category>Wedding</category>
		<dc:creator>amberglow</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The (Wedding) March of Progress</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/56728/The%2DWedding%2DMarch%2Dof%2DProgress</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1963843,00.html"&gt;The grooms wore khakis and leather boots.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;i&gt; Two game rangers, Vernon Gibbs and Tony Halls, became the first same-sex couple to legally wed in South Africa on December 1, a day after President Thabo Mbeki&apos;s government authorised gay marriages.&lt;/i&gt; SA is the 5th country allowing fullly equal same-sex marriage rights--&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005dec/0502.htm&quot;&gt;Worldwide timeline of advances here, from 1979 until now.&lt;/a&gt;  (In other news: Israel just officially recognized full rights for marriages made abroad, and Mexico City just approved Civil Unions)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.56728</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:33:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>equality</category>
		<category>glbt</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>rights</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>society</category>
		<category>world</category>
		<dc:creator>amberglow</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>civil unions? marriage?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/55813/civil%2Dunions%2Dmarriage</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/25/151343/19"&gt;NJ says yes to same-sex marriage!&lt;/a&gt; (altho it might not be called that in the end) -- link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-68-05.pdf&quot;&gt;pdf of ruling here&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.55813</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:26:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>civilrights</category>
		<category>courts</category>
		<category>equality</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>GLBT</category>
		<category>laws</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>rights</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>unions</category>
		<dc:creator>amberglow</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Gay Marriage - You mean it&apos;s not legal already?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26478/Gay%2DMarriage%2DYou%2Dmean%2Dits%2Dnot%2Dlegal%2Dalready</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/international/americas/18CANA.html?ex=1056600000&amp;amp;en=c1a87baf7799d7d2&amp;amp;ei=5065&amp;amp;partner=MYWAY"&gt;Gay Marriage - Go Canada&lt;/a&gt; Canada is only the third country, after Netherlands and Belgium, to legalize gay marriages. This surprised me because I figured we were playing catch up to most 1st world countries.  Not so surprisingly my home province of &lt;a href=&quot;http://canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=3832a9ca-d3ee-49b3-af01-c8ced461b863&quot;&gt;Alberta&lt;/a&gt; is promising to block same sex marriages and will refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples.  Which must be putting smiles on faces at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tourism.bc.ca/&quot;&gt;Tourism BC&lt;/a&gt;.  Interestingly this may cause big waves in the USA as they have traditionally recognized Canadian marriages as valid under US law and Canada has no &lt;a href=&quot;http://gocanada.about.com/library/weekly/aa082601a.htm&quot;&gt;residency&lt;/a&gt; requirement for marriage licenses.  How surprised would you be if your local authority followed Canada&#8217;s example?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26478</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:45:49 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>canada</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>legal</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<dc:creator>Mitheral</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21349/</link>
		<description> The art of being Canadian is often making do. Same-sex marriage is a national hot-button issue right now. What &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/news-comm/2002/NewsComm072302.asp&quot;&gt;rights&lt;/a&gt; should homosexual partners have?  What does it mean &lt;a href=&quot;http://goodword.ca/angdebate/&quot;&gt;to the church&lt;/a&gt;? There comes a new option in the debate: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20021104/UGAYYM&quot;&gt;civil union&lt;/a&gt;, not quite marriage, but more than just shacking-up. Will this be enough to satisfy as many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.web.net/owtoad/desde.html&quot;&gt;as possible under the circumstances?&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21349</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:37:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>canada</category>
		<category>civilunion</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>homosexual</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<dc:creator>bonehead</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/6700/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-03-31-dutch-samesex.htm"&gt;&quot;Going Dutch&quot;&lt;/a&gt; will never mean the same again. As of today, Dutch law allows same-sex marriages. Though other countries register same-sex couples, this new Dutch law is groundbreaking as it eliminates all references to gender in laws governing marriage, adoption, inheritance, pension rights, taxes and divorce. Even the dictionary&apos;s definition of marriage will be changed.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.6700</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2001 06:08:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Dutch</category>
		<category>gayrights</category>
		<category>laws</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>Netherlands</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<dc:creator>prolific</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/727/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.ultimatetv.com/news/TVNewsDaily.html?6583"&gt;politically incorrect may air a gay marriage. &lt;/a&gt; if they can find two guys who will exchange vows, P.I. will air it on febuary 18th.  hmm.  &quot;The on-screen wedding will kick off an episode devoted entirely to gay marriage, a particularly timely topic given Vermont&apos;s recent block of an anti-marriage bill, California&apos;s upcoming Proposition 22&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.727</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:51:07 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>dating</category>
		<category>gay</category>
		<category>homosexuals</category>
		<category>marriage</category>
		<category>politicallyincorrect</category>
		<category>relationships</category>
		<category>samesex</category>
		<category>television</category>
		<category>weddings</category>
		<dc:creator>palegirl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


