<?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: A very busy Valentines Day here in Colorado</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:38:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trevor</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89020</link>
		<dc:creator>Trevor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89020</guid>
		<description>Daniel is fairly adorkable...who knew?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel is fairly adorkable&#8230;who knew?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regan DuCasse</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89015</link>
		<dc:creator>Regan DuCasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89015</guid>
		<description>Yep, with all the pontificating before marriage equality debates on what qualifies a person as &#039;best&#039; to be married, this points out the state&#039;s interests cannot justify discrimination against gay couples.
 And those opposed to equality have no defense of it.

  Complete op sex strangers can marry, but a committed gay couple, who have combined their responsibilities into child rearing, tax paying and so on, cannot.

    This all boils down to the anti gay setting up the biggest spite barrier SINCE Jim Crow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, with all the pontificating before marriage equality debates on what qualifies a person as &#8216;best&#8217; to be married, this points out the state&#8217;s interests cannot justify discrimination against gay couples.<br />
 And those opposed to equality have no defense of it.</p>
<p>  Complete op sex strangers can marry, but a committed gay couple, who have combined their responsibilities into child rearing, tax paying and so on, cannot.</p>
<p>    This all boils down to the anti gay setting up the biggest spite barrier SINCE Jim Crow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowboy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89014</link>
		<dc:creator>cowboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89014</guid>
		<description>With budget crunches I wouldn’t be too harsh on the public employees who took the time to make a “gaudy” backdrop.  Be grateful you had one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With budget crunches I wouldn’t be too harsh on the public employees who took the time to make a “gaudy” backdrop.  Be grateful you had one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89010</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89010</guid>
		<description>Dan!  Why am I always the last to know?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan!  Why am I always the last to know?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Rush</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89008</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Rush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89008</guid>
		<description>A gay guy and a lesbian he just met obtaining a marriage license is a great stunt idea to dramatise the stupidity of marriage laws. It would also function as a response to those who say we have the same rights as everyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex.

We should try to organize &quot;LG couples&quot; across the nation to obtain marriage licenses in every state that still bans same-sex marriage. The reality would be kept a secret, of course, until after thousands of licenses have been issued.

While I first thought the authorities would scramble to find a way to stop the practice, they may actually actually favor it because it would add money to government coffers. 

And wouldn&#039;t it put the &quot;pro-family&quot; types in a pickle? Would they encourage those couples to make a go of marriage because of that coveted potential for penis-in-vagina functionality which is at the core of their marriage definition? Or would they attack the practise, thereby being seen as opposing some opposite-sex marriage licenses while having to admit that maybe real human relationships should be at the core of marriage definition, rather than the lesser significant biological distinctions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A gay guy and a lesbian he just met obtaining a marriage license is a great stunt idea to dramatise the stupidity of marriage laws. It would also function as a response to those who say we have the same rights as everyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex.</p>
<p>We should try to organize &#8220;LG couples&#8221; across the nation to obtain marriage licenses in every state that still bans same-sex marriage. The reality would be kept a secret, of course, until after thousands of licenses have been issued.</p>
<p>While I first thought the authorities would scramble to find a way to stop the practice, they may actually actually favor it because it would add money to government coffers. </p>
<p>And wouldn&#8217;t it put the &#8220;pro-family&#8221; types in a pickle? Would they encourage those couples to make a go of marriage because of that coveted potential for penis-in-vagina functionality which is at the core of their marriage definition? Or would they attack the practise, thereby being seen as opposing some opposite-sex marriage licenses while having to admit that maybe real human relationships should be at the core of marriage definition, rather than the lesser significant biological distinctions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89006</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89006</guid>
		<description>Wooo! Way to go Dan!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wooo! Way to go Dan!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justsearching</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/02/15/30460/comment-page-1#comment-89001</link>
		<dc:creator>justsearching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30460#comment-89001</guid>
		<description>Welcome to the most sacred rite of western civilization.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to the most sacred rite of western civilization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
