<?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: Another Perspective on the Ocean Grove Pavilion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:37:57 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Update on post about the New Jersey church being told they have to allow same-sex weddings</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/comment-page-1#comment-29570</link>
		<dc:creator>Update on post about the New Jersey church being told they have to allow same-sex weddings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=7706#comment-29570</guid>
		<description>[...] religious in nature. The had even allowed non-religious weddings to be held there. As noted in the Box Turtle Bulletin, however, following the request by the lesbians to use the pavilion &#8230;the Association had [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] religious in nature. The had even allowed non-religious weddings to be held there. As noted in the Box Turtle Bulletin, however, following the request by the lesbians to use the pavilion &#8230;the Association had [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/comment-page-1#comment-29512</link>
		<dc:creator>cd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=7706#comment-29512</guid>
		<description>We shouldnt forget, however, that ultimately all these scurrilous claims (be they about being forced to endorse gay marriages, or that it opens the door to polygamy, or whatever) are not things the other side really cares about.

They are all excuses and efforts intended to obstruct, to put promarriage people on the defensive, to diffuse and dilute efforts and demoralize supporters.  And to appeal to tacit bigotries and arrogance in Undecideds. 

We should not dignify all these tactical obstructions by treating them as legitimate or as entirely appropriate to address in the here and now.  The innovation in Blitzkrieg doctrine was an understanding that to achieve victory, the strategic objectives could not be allowed to be greatly diluted or contradicted by tactical objectives or wasting unnecessary time or effort on tactical obstructions.  Basically, defensive hard points had to be encircled and kept unable to exert enough force by an adequate minor force (often specialists) and the big offensive forces just bypass it with minimal losses.

That is perhaps what is needed here.  A division of labor where specialists contain and attack the problems if not break them, while average grassroots activists march on toward the principal objective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We shouldnt forget, however, that ultimately all these scurrilous claims (be they about being forced to endorse gay marriages, or that it opens the door to polygamy, or whatever) are not things the other side really cares about.</p>
<p>They are all excuses and efforts intended to obstruct, to put promarriage people on the defensive, to diffuse and dilute efforts and demoralize supporters.  And to appeal to tacit bigotries and arrogance in Undecideds. </p>
<p>We should not dignify all these tactical obstructions by treating them as legitimate or as entirely appropriate to address in the here and now.  The innovation in Blitzkrieg doctrine was an understanding that to achieve victory, the strategic objectives could not be allowed to be greatly diluted or contradicted by tactical objectives or wasting unnecessary time or effort on tactical obstructions.  Basically, defensive hard points had to be encircled and kept unable to exert enough force by an adequate minor force (often specialists) and the big offensive forces just bypass it with minimal losses.</p>
<p>That is perhaps what is needed here.  A division of labor where specialists contain and attack the problems if not break them, while average grassroots activists march on toward the principal objective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan B</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/comment-page-1#comment-29443</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=7706#comment-29443</guid>
		<description>Show up every day and perform a &quot;Marriage&quot;.  Each one should be different, fun, and an excuse for a party / celebration.

Civil Rights - Why should we care?

One decision vs. another decision.

One celebration vs. another celebration.

Celebrating one love vs. another love.



Just SHOW UP AND CELEBRATE.  They&#039;ll fight and they&#039;ll lose. 


Then we can get together afterwards and argue the details.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Show up every day and perform a &#8220;Marriage&#8221;.  Each one should be different, fun, and an excuse for a party / celebration.</p>
<p>Civil Rights &#8211; Why should we care?</p>
<p>One decision vs. another decision.</p>
<p>One celebration vs. another celebration.</p>
<p>Celebrating one love vs. another love.</p>
<p>Just SHOW UP AND CELEBRATE.  They&#8217;ll fight and they&#8217;ll lose. </p>
<p>Then we can get together afterwards and argue the details.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/comment-page-1#comment-29413</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=7706#comment-29413</guid>
		<description>Fiona,

The article on Not a Potted Plant goes into greater detail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fiona,</p>
<p>The article on Not a Potted Plant goes into greater detail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fiona</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/30/7706/comment-page-1#comment-29409</link>
		<dc:creator>Fiona</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=7706#comment-29409</guid>
		<description>I have a question. Did the Ocean Grove Association lose their public accomodation tax break (and I believe other public funding that goes with being open to the public) for changing from a public accomodation site to a private restricted site? If they did not, then the second lawsuit should have continued. It&#039;s not clear in the post if they lost the public perks or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a question. Did the Ocean Grove Association lose their public accomodation tax break (and I believe other public funding that goes with being open to the public) for changing from a public accomodation site to a private restricted site? If they did not, then the second lawsuit should have continued. It&#8217;s not clear in the post if they lost the public perks or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
