<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>AKA William &#187; legal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.akawilliam.com/tag/legal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.akawilliam.com</link>
	<description>All Kinds of Gay</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:50:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>BREAKING: NY Court of Appeals Rules Gay Married Couples Entitled To Benefits</title>
		<link>http://www.akawilliam.com/breaking-ny-court-of-appeals-rules-gay-married-couples-entitled-to-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.akawilliam.com/breaking-ny-court-of-appeals-rules-gay-married-couples-entitled-to-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AKAWilliam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alliance Defense Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.akawilliam.com/?p=28272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Via the AP:

New York&#8217;s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group&#8217;s challenge to some government benefits provided to same-sex couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.
But the court avoided declaring that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.
In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Via the <a href="http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11536737">AP</a>:<br />
<a href="http://www.akawilliam.com/new-york-court-to-hear-two-gay-marriage-cases/new-york-state-map/" rel="attachment wp-att-9190"><img src="http://www.akawilliam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/new-york-state-map-150x150.jpg" alt="new-york-state-map" title="new-york-state-map" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-9190" /></a></p>
<blockquote><p>New York&#8217;s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group&#8217;s challenge to some government benefits provided to same-sex couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.</p>
<p>But the court avoided declaring that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.</p>
<p>In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.</p>
<p> . . . With Thursday&#8217;s court decision, legally married same-sex couples will be entitled to public employee health insurance coverage and certain other benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s been a good 24 hours for us, <a href="http://www.akawilliam.com/judge-orders-compensation-for-married-gay-couple-denied-benefits/">benefits-wise</a>. </p>
<p>The NYT <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/court-upholds-recognition-of-gay-marriages/">says</a>: &#8221; . . . the decision gave gay advocates a small victory because it was narrowly written and applied to a relatively small number of people . . . The ruling leaves open the possibility that there could be future challenges on the issue in New York.&#8221;</p>
<p>And still we wait for the NY Senate marriage vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.akawilliam.com/breaking-ny-court-of-appeals-rules-gay-married-couples-entitled-to-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Challenge To Prop 8 Withstands Request For Dismissal</title>
		<link>http://www.akawilliam.com/federal-challenge-to-prop-8-withstands-request-for-dismissal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.akawilliam.com/federal-challenge-to-prop-8-withstands-request-for-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AKAWilliam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Vaughn Walker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olson-Boies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protect Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.akawilliam.com/?p=26845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who has previously fast-tracked the Olson-Boies federal challenge to Prop 8, rejected Protect Marriage&#8217;s claim that a trial was unnecessary and redundant:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has said repeatedly that a trial is needed to resolve disputes that may determine the measure&#8217;s constitutionality, so Wednesday&#8217;s ruling did not [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who has previously <a href="http://www.akawilliam.com/federal-challenge-to-prop-8-moving-speedily-ahead/">fast-tracked</a> the Olson-Boies federal challenge to Prop 8, rejected Protect Marriage&#8217;s claim that a trial was unnecessary and redundant:<br />
<a href="http://www.akawilliam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/vaughn_walker16.jpg"><img src="http://www.akawilliam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/vaughn_walker16-150x150.jpg" alt="vaughn_walker16" title="vaughn_walker16" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-26846" /></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has said repeatedly that a trial is needed to resolve disputes that may determine the measure&#8217;s constitutionality, so Wednesday&#8217;s ruling did not surprise either side.</p>
<p>But the breadth of his decision was a boost for gay rights advocates, who argue that Prop. 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays, is rooted in anti-homosexual bias and violates the right to marry the partner of one&#8217;s choice.</p>
<p>Walker said federal courts haven&#8217;t resolved the standard for judging laws that treat heterosexuals and homosexuals differently. The answer, he said, could be determined by testimony on such topics as how much political power gays and lesbians hold and to what degree they are discriminated against.[<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/14/BAQL1A5N0C.DTL&#038;tsp=1">SF Gate</a>]
</p></blockquote>
<p>The Olson-Boies trial is set for January 11,, 2010, but could be delayed by Protect Marriage&#8217;s challenge to Walker&#8217;s order to disclose disclose internal campaign strategy documents, which reveal plans to appeal to voter prejudice against gays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.akawilliam.com/federal-challenge-to-prop-8-withstands-request-for-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
<!--
This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache:

W3 Total Cache improves the user experience of your blog by caching
frequent operations, reducing the weight of various files and providing
transparent content delivery network integration.

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk
Database Caching 0/16 queries in 0.130 seconds using memcached
Content Delivery Network via files.akawilliam.netdna-cdn.com

Served from: server.akawilliam.com @ 2009-11-20 22:22:34 -->