<?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: Minnesota Poll on Marraige</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 02:47:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ephilei</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084/comment-page-1#comment-39853</link>
		<dc:creator>Ephilei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 07:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11084#comment-39853</guid>
		<description>So 35% either don&#039;t care, want to shirk the problem, or are wonderfully humble and faithful in the greater wisdom of their judges. Whatever the case(s), I&#039;m surprised it&#039;s that high. I&#039;d expect 5-10%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So 35% either don&#8217;t care, want to shirk the problem, or are wonderfully humble and faithful in the greater wisdom of their judges. Whatever the case(s), I&#8217;m surprised it&#8217;s that high. I&#8217;d expect 5-10%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: occono</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084/comment-page-1#comment-39725</link>
		<dc:creator>occono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11084#comment-39725</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve never seen that option before either.

Of course the Supreme Court of Minnesota already heard a case on SSM back in 1971, though that was based on Loving V. Virginia applying to SSM (Which led to SCOTUS dismissing it as an unsubstantial Federal question, a decision unappeable to appellate courts until it reverses that) not the State Constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never seen that option before either.</p>
<p>Of course the Supreme Court of Minnesota already heard a case on SSM back in 1971, though that was based on Loving V. Virginia applying to SSM (Which led to SCOTUS dismissing it as an unsubstantial Federal question, a decision unappeable to appellate courts until it reverses that) not the State Constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruno</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084/comment-page-1#comment-39722</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11084#comment-39722</guid>
		<description>&quot;Leave it to the Supreme Court&quot;...never seen that as an option in one of these polls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Leave it to the Supreme Court&#8221;&#8230;never seen that as an option in one of these polls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: occono</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/01/11084/comment-page-1#comment-39718</link>
		<dc:creator>occono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=11084#comment-39718</guid>
		<description>Huh, I&#039;m pleasantly surprised, I would have thought there&#039;d be majority support for prohibition, though I&#039;m not that knowledgeable about Minnesota.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh, I&#8217;m pleasantly surprised, I would have thought there&#8217;d be majority support for prohibition, though I&#8217;m not that knowledgeable about Minnesota.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
