<?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: Massachusetts AG Challenges DOMA In Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 21:17:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44370</link>
		<dc:creator>cd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44370</guid>
		<description>Massachusetts...first in all the good stuff that lasts.  :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Massachusetts&#8230;first in all the good stuff that lasts.  :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark F.</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44359</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44359</guid>
		<description>This is a good Federalist approach which conservatives ought to support. Allow the states to define marriage as they wish, but force the Feds to recognize all legal marriages. This avoids the significant problems of compelling all states to allow gay marriages, which would create a major backlash right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good Federalist approach which conservatives ought to support. Allow the states to define marriage as they wish, but force the Feds to recognize all legal marriages. This avoids the significant problems of compelling all states to allow gay marriages, which would create a major backlash right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard W. Fitch</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44347</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard W. Fitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44347</guid>
		<description>The long-term question becomes: if more states pass laws affirming same-sex-marriage, at what point will the federal govt be compelled to grant federal recognition to ALL same-sex couples?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The long-term question becomes: if more states pass laws affirming same-sex-marriage, at what point will the federal govt be compelled to grant federal recognition to ALL same-sex couples?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Waldrop</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44333</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Waldrop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44333</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I’ve long thought that the injured parties in DOMA are the states, even moreso than the individuals (couples are injured on a state level).&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s an excellent point, and it also makes me think of something then-candidate George W. Bush said in response to a question about same-sex marriage. He said it was a states&#039; rights issue, not something the federal government should concern itself with. 

He changed his tune later on, but if any politician&#039;s position is that marriage should be left up to individual states to define then he or she should be reminded that they are therefore opposed to DOMA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I’ve long thought that the injured parties in DOMA are the states, even moreso than the individuals (couples are injured on a state level).</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s an excellent point, and it also makes me think of something then-candidate George W. Bush said in response to a question about same-sex marriage. He said it was a states&#8217; rights issue, not something the federal government should concern itself with. </p>
<p>He changed his tune later on, but if any politician&#8217;s position is that marriage should be left up to individual states to define then he or she should be reminded that they are therefore opposed to DOMA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44323</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44323</guid>
		<description>And i&#039;m GLAD (pun intended) to see a politician that actually stands for something, like american values.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And i&#8217;m GLAD (pun intended) to see a politician that actually stands for something, like american values.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44319</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44319</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve long thought that the injured parties in DOMA are the states, even moreso than the individuals (couples are injured on a state level).  The first clause of DOMA is nothing more than a power-grab by the federal government to wrest control over marriage from the states and turn it over to a centralized goverment.

I&#039;m glad to see Massachusetts stand up for its rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve long thought that the injured parties in DOMA are the states, even moreso than the individuals (couples are injured on a state level).  The first clause of DOMA is nothing more than a power-grab by the federal government to wrest control over marriage from the states and turn it over to a centralized goverment.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad to see Massachusetts stand up for its rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K in VA</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13033/comment-page-1#comment-44313</link>
		<dc:creator>K in VA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=13033#comment-44313</guid>
		<description>Brava, AG Coakley! And bravo, all you good folks of Massachusetts!

Now, let&#039;s see how the Obama administration deals with this one! They can&#039;t be happy about lawsuits and attacks coming from all sides -- too damned bad, I say.

Keep up the pressure on our not-so-fierce advocate. Call 202-456-1111 NOW, and ask POTUS to stop supporting, and work to repeal, DOMA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brava, AG Coakley! And bravo, all you good folks of Massachusetts!</p>
<p>Now, let&#8217;s see how the Obama administration deals with this one! They can&#8217;t be happy about lawsuits and attacks coming from all sides &#8212; too damned bad, I say.</p>
<p>Keep up the pressure on our not-so-fierce advocate. Call 202-456-1111 NOW, and ask POTUS to stop supporting, and work to repeal, DOMA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
