<?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>The World According to Greg &#187; Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/tag/marriage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:08:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>No Word On Whether Same Sex Couples Have to Plant Trees</title>
		<link>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/06/no-word-on-whether-same-sex-couples-have-to-plant-trees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/06/no-word-on-whether-same-sex-couples-have-to-plant-trees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ghile</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deforestation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indonesia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems that at least one area within Indonesia is now requiring couples to plant trees as a condition of receiving a marriage license. Couples in Gorontalo, a rugged mountainous province on Sulawesi island, are being required to plant 10 seedlings supplied by the local government, according to the religious affairs office. The program, which critics [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that at least one area within Indonesia is now requiring couples to plant trees as a condition of receiving a marriage license. Couples in Gorontalo, a rugged mountainous province on Sulawesi island, are being required to plant 10 seedlings supplied by the local government, <a title="Indonesians told to plant trees before marrying" href="http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/06/04/D913FF400_odd_indonesia_green_vows/index.html" target="_blank">according to the religious affairs office</a>.</p>
<p>The program, which critics say is largely symbolic, is part of a nationwide “re-greening” initiative launched by President Yudhoyono at the Bali Conference last November when million of trees were planted across the country. Deforestation has long been a major problem in the country, the result of illegal logging, mining, new oil palm plantations, and slash-and-burn land clearing. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/06/no-word-on-whether-same-sex-couples-have-to-plant-trees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Surprise, Surprise</title>
		<link>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/05/surprise-surprise/</link>
		<comments>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/05/surprise-surprise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 19:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ghile</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have to admit, even though I am in favor of same-sex marriage, I was quite surprised—no, stunned—by the California Supreme Court&#8217;s decision upholding same-sex marriage in California. I have only glanced at the decision (the opinions can be downloaded here) but it is important to note that all seven justices concurred in at least part [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to admit, even though I am in favor of same-sex marriage, I was quite surprised—no, stunned—by the California Supreme Court&#8217;s decision upholding same-sex marriage in California. I have only glanced at the decision (the opinions can be downloaded <a title="California Supreme Court decision In Re Marriage Cases" href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF" target="_blank">here</a>) but it is important to note that all seven justices concurred in at least part of the majority decision. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice George, there is a concurring opinion by Justice Kennard, a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter (also signed by Justice Chin), and another concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Corrigan. Thus, even though technically a 4-3 decision, the notion that the state must treat same-sex couples the same as different-sex couples was much stronger. The issue for the partial dissenters seemed to largely rest on whether the term <em>marriage</em> itself could be used to define same-sex marriage, not whether same-sex couples could be discriminated against. One could say this case was more about semantics than civil rights, and that is a significant step forward regardless of whether the voters overturn the decision in November.</p>
<p>Note also that six of the seven justices are Republicans and that Governor Schwarzenegger has come out against the proposed ballot initiative currently being certified for the November ballot. Some pundits have attributed Bush&#8217;s 2004 re-election to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom&#8217;s directive to issue seme-sex marriage licenses (which is what prompted this litigation in the first place). All of this will make for an interesting time come November, and may once again put California in play for the Republicans, or at the very least make the Democrats spend more money and resources in California protecting what would otherwise be a safely blue state. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.envirojustice.org/gregsworld/2008/05/surprise-surprise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
