<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Republican Delegates Support Civil Unions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:58:17 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Virginia is for denial : Equality Loudoun</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829/comment-page-1#comment-16351</link>
		<dc:creator>Virginia is for denial : Equality Loudoun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=2829#comment-16351</guid>
		<description>[...] Box Turtle Bulletin reports that more Republican delegates support either marriage equality or civil unions (49%) than [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Box Turtle Bulletin reports that more Republican delegates support either marriage equality or civil unions (49%) than [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829/comment-page-1#comment-16251</link>
		<dc:creator>Jen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=2829#comment-16251</guid>
		<description>I have been saying this forever but I&#039;ll say it again. The Republicans need to take back their party from the Christian conservatives. Reagan brought them in and it has messed up the party ever since. I am not abandoning the party but I don&#039;t have to vote for them either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been saying this forever but I&#8217;ll say it again. The Republicans need to take back their party from the Christian conservatives. Reagan brought them in and it has messed up the party ever since. I am not abandoning the party but I don&#8217;t have to vote for them either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn David</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829/comment-page-1#comment-16249</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=2829#comment-16249</guid>
		<description>Clear as an Alaskan glacial-fed stream.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clear as an Alaskan glacial-fed stream.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cany</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/02/2829/comment-page-1#comment-16246</link>
		<dc:creator>cany</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=2829#comment-16246</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t find this surprising in either case.  Remember, in the case of the GOP, many if not most of the platform makers are hard right Christians (still--sigh). 

This STILL has to do with the religious right.  And if you think they are backing off any time soon, you are wrong.  Palin, for instance, comes from a VERY hard right religious background and embraces that thinking to this day (Assemblies of God).  AOG are Biblical literalists and as hard right (and also becoming more and more militant... do some reading about Joel&#039;s Army at Hatewatch.com) as you can get.

In regards to the GOP, what people seem to forget time and time again (and who wouldn&#039;t want to?) is that the religious right attack dogs don&#039;t let go. And they CANNOT change position because of their Biblical &lt;b&gt;literalism.&lt;/b&gt;

The VP, for instance, was picked for two reasons:  1) she is a woman (read McCain=panderer), and 2) she is a literalist, creationist evangelical (read pander to the hard evangelical right).  He had to cement that vote, which now, as it turns out, it would appear he did not do.  He most certainly did not meet his first reason (1), above as yesterday&#039;s polling CLEARLY shows.

I mean, Lordy:  When Phillis Schlafly doesn&#039;t like Palin (remember--this strict bunch believes the Bible demands women be homemakers) and is pissed off, that gives you some idea where issues stand.

Until and unless the GOP moves away from the hard religious right (and that doesn&#039;t appear to be happening contrary to some popular opinion, though McCain DID try to move away from them but his overall weak support, generally, wouldn&#039;t allow that to stand), don&#039;t expect their platform to change or expect meaningful change in the GOP.

Won&#039;t happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t find this surprising in either case.  Remember, in the case of the GOP, many if not most of the platform makers are hard right Christians (still&#8211;sigh). </p>
<p>This STILL has to do with the religious right.  And if you think they are backing off any time soon, you are wrong.  Palin, for instance, comes from a VERY hard right religious background and embraces that thinking to this day (Assemblies of God).  AOG are Biblical literalists and as hard right (and also becoming more and more militant&#8230; do some reading about Joel&#8217;s Army at Hatewatch.com) as you can get.</p>
<p>In regards to the GOP, what people seem to forget time and time again (and who wouldn&#8217;t want to?) is that the religious right attack dogs don&#8217;t let go. And they CANNOT change position because of their Biblical <b>literalism.</b></p>
<p>The VP, for instance, was picked for two reasons:  1) she is a woman (read McCain=panderer), and 2) she is a literalist, creationist evangelical (read pander to the hard evangelical right).  He had to cement that vote, which now, as it turns out, it would appear he did not do.  He most certainly did not meet his first reason (1), above as yesterday&#8217;s polling CLEARLY shows.</p>
<p>I mean, Lordy:  When Phillis Schlafly doesn&#8217;t like Palin (remember&#8211;this strict bunch believes the Bible demands women be homemakers) and is pissed off, that gives you some idea where issues stand.</p>
<p>Until and unless the GOP moves away from the hard religious right (and that doesn&#8217;t appear to be happening contrary to some popular opinion, though McCain DID try to move away from them but his overall weak support, generally, wouldn&#8217;t allow that to stand), don&#8217;t expect their platform to change or expect meaningful change in the GOP.</p>
<p>Won&#8217;t happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
