<?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: Return of the Bride and Groom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:03:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddie89</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18655</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie89</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18655</guid>
		<description>No, I belive that it will still be just 1 (one) single form. Just with all of the various options listed on both sides of the form and then people can check/circle/underline, whichever one applied to them.

California - Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona - Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida - Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I belive that it will still be just 1 (one) single form. Just with all of the various options listed on both sides of the form and then people can check/circle/underline, whichever one applied to them.</p>
<p>California &#8211; Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!<br />
Arizona &#8211; Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!<br />
Florida &#8211; Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Sloan</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18649</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Sloan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18649</guid>
		<description>Actually, as I read the story ion the Sacramento Bee, there will be at least three forms, bride and groom, husband and husband, wife and wife, and possibly for those who have no preference, party A and Party B</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, as I read the story ion the Sacramento Bee, there will be at least three forms, bride and groom, husband and husband, wife and wife, and possibly for those who have no preference, party A and Party B</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tavdy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18617</link>
		<dc:creator>Tavdy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18617</guid>
		<description>Given the choice, I&#039;d prefer Groom and Groom. Since there&#039;s evidently now four options on the form, why not simply call a spade a spade?

Of course the heterosexualists won&#039;t like the fact that their nice smart marriage forms have such an explicit reference to gays being allowed to marry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the choice, I&#8217;d prefer Groom and Groom. Since there&#8217;s evidently now four options on the form, why not simply call a spade a spade?</p>
<p>Of course the heterosexualists won&#8217;t like the fact that their nice smart marriage forms have such an explicit reference to gays being allowed to marry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GDad</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18603</link>
		<dc:creator>GDad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18603</guid>
		<description>If having a correct descriptive term on a form that is more inclusive is somehow harmful, then heterosexual people are awfully delicate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If having a correct descriptive term on a form that is more inclusive is somehow harmful, then heterosexual people are awfully delicate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eddie89</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18600</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie89</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18600</guid>
		<description>Well, at least it&#039;s an easy solution to a non-problem. They will just have bride/groom listed as options on both sides and the respective party chooses which one applies to them.

It&#039;s like the Bank of America deposit form. One single form for checking/savings deposits, you just circle which one you are depositing into.

Now all we need to do is defeat Prop. 8!

California - Vote &quot;NO&quot; on Prop. 8!
Arizona - Vote &quot;NO&quot; on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida - Vote &quot;NO&quot; on Amendment 2!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, at least it&#8217;s an easy solution to a non-problem. They will just have bride/groom listed as options on both sides and the respective party chooses which one applies to them.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like the Bank of America deposit form. One single form for checking/savings deposits, you just circle which one you are depositing into.</p>
<p>Now all we need to do is defeat Prop. 8!</p>
<p>California &#8211; Vote &#8220;NO&#8221; on Prop. 8!<br />
Arizona &#8211; Vote &#8220;NO&#8221; on Prop. 102! AGAIN!<br />
Florida &#8211; Vote &#8220;NO&#8221; on Amendment 2!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buster</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/07/3369/comment-page-1#comment-18596</link>
		<dc:creator>Buster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3369#comment-18596</guid>
		<description>Talk about special rights! There is absolutely no reason to add the words &quot;bride&quot; and &quot;groom&quot; to the form except to satisfy the sense of entitlement of heterosexuals (and, of course, to include language that gay people probably won&#039;t feel they have access to). What nonsense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Talk about special rights! There is absolutely no reason to add the words &#8220;bride&#8221; and &#8220;groom&#8221; to the form except to satisfy the sense of entitlement of heterosexuals (and, of course, to include language that gay people probably won&#8217;t feel they have access to). What nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

