<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Slog - Comments on CA Same-Sex Marriage &amp; the Ripple Effect</title>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect</link>
<description>If you&apos;re interested in the legal implications of the California marriage decision--like, will other states follow California&apos;s lead?--then I highly, highly recommend this series of Volokh Conspiracy posts (by University of Minnesota Law School prof Dale Carpenter). It&apos;s dense reading, but not inaccessible to the lay person....</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 11:26:26 -0800</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 06:34:52 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Comment by TheTruthHurts</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I wish I could be a laid person!</p>]]></description>
<author>TheTruthHurts</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1030979</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1030979</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 11:53:30 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by TheTruthHurts</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I wish I could be a "laid person"!</p>

<p>oh wait.</p>

<p>never mind.</p>]]></description>
<author>TheTruthHurts</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1030990</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1030990</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 11:54:45 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by devochka</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Anyone read the comments of that link? Crazy conservative. What always get me about the "judicial elite pushing their opinions on the citizens who disagree and voted against it" argument is that the majority will never voluntarily choose to protect the minority, if there is any chance whatsoever, even imagined, that the majority could be negatively effected. That is why we have more than just one branch of government. </p>]]></description>
<author>devochka</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031182</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031182</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 12:29:34 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by devochka</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>shit, affected*</p>]]></description>
<author>devochka</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031188</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031188</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 12:31:18 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Original Andrew</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p></p>

<p><br />
Two questions have been bothering me for some time, and I’d really like answers. Any legal eagle sloggers like to tackle these?</p>

<p></p>

<p>1)	Why is it that oppenents of same sex marriage are never asked to demonstrate that their claims are true, or rather that they have legal validity? (i.e. That marriage for gay men and lesbians victimizes and harms heterosexuals. Really? How?)</p>

<p></p>

<p>2)	Can a constitutional amendment itself be unconstitutional? What if voters approved a constitutional ban on inter-racial marriage?<br />
</p>]]></description>
<author>Original Andrew</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031212</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031212</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 12:39:26 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by inkweary</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I think there will be an  increase in constitutional amendments in states that have already enacted legislation banning gay marriage. These will probably pass in states that have large populations of conservatives, which will tie the hands of courts making rulings similar to California's.</p>]]></description>
<author>inkweary</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031361</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031361</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:19:49 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Original Andrew</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><br />
@ 6,</p>

<p><br />
We can't condemn progress for equality based on what our enemies might do. All they've got to cling to are their guns, bitterness and hatred, and karma is smackin' 'em down hard.</p>

<p><br />
Will the last people to leave Michigan and Ohio please turn out the lights?</p>]]></description>
<author>Original Andrew</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031451</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1031451</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:45:42 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Vince</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A recent poll indicates a majority of Cal. voters favor a constitutional ban.</p>]]></description>
<author>Vince</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1032019</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/ca_samesex_marriage_the_ripple_effect#c1032019</guid>
<category>Homo</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 06:34:52 -0800</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>