<?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: Maggie Gallagher Pines for Pawlenty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/08/05/35858/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/08/05/35858</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stefan</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/08/05/35858/comment-page-1#comment-100677</link>
		<dc:creator>Stefan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=35858#comment-100677</guid>
		<description>Gay marriage will not be repealed in New Hampshire. The issue is nothing more than political grandstanding for the GOP primary kickoff season. Even the bill&#039;s sponsor expresses &quot;uncertainty&quot; of having the votes (there are still 26 Republicans in the state house who voted against repeal in 2010, and we would only need 4 more to kill a veto-proof majority). Plus, even if it does manage a veto-proof majority and pass, gay rights groups will immediately sue and likely stay the law, tying up the state&#039;s legal resources for years and wasting much needed revenue which the state needs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gay marriage will not be repealed in New Hampshire. The issue is nothing more than political grandstanding for the GOP primary kickoff season. Even the bill&#8217;s sponsor expresses &#8220;uncertainty&#8221; of having the votes (there are still 26 Republicans in the state house who voted against repeal in 2010, and we would only need 4 more to kill a veto-proof majority). Plus, even if it does manage a veto-proof majority and pass, gay rights groups will immediately sue and likely stay the law, tying up the state&#8217;s legal resources for years and wasting much needed revenue which the state needs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jc</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/08/05/35858/comment-page-1#comment-100652</link>
		<dc:creator>jc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=35858#comment-100652</guid>
		<description>okay, i can&#039;t resist asking....when does maggie unzip her forehead and show herself to be the last living descendent of the slitheen family from raxacoricofallapatorius?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>okay, i can&#8217;t resist asking&#8230;.when does maggie unzip her forehead and show herself to be the last living descendent of the slitheen family from raxacoricofallapatorius?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/08/05/35858/comment-page-1#comment-100600</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=35858#comment-100600</guid>
		<description>We too think winning in Minnesota will be helpful.  And, unlike Maggie, the polls do seem to be on our side.

The current consensus is that when it comes to anti-gay marriage bans, the &quot;no&quot; votes (our side) in polls are the votes you are going to get while the &quot;yes&quot; and all of the &quot;undecided&quot; will vote yes (statistically, not individually).

The last poll, back in May, shows the Minnesota Marriage Ban with 39% support and 55% opposed.  Even using the above rule, it loses 45 to 55.

And Minnesota has one peculiarity to their propositions: to pass it must receive a majority of all voters, not just those who cast a vote on that proposition.  Those who vote for President but not one way or the other on the proposition are counted as a &quot;no&quot; vote.

To see how that could impact a vote, in 2008 7,001,084 Californians voted &quot;yes&quot; on Proposition 8.  That was 52.2% of all votes on the Proposition.

But 340,611 voters did not vote on that measure.  Were they counted as &quot;no&quot; votes, as Minnesota rules require, then Prop 8 would still pass, but only with 50.9% of the vote and with only a 258,991 vote lead out of 13.4 million voters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We too think winning in Minnesota will be helpful.  And, unlike Maggie, the polls do seem to be on our side.</p>
<p>The current consensus is that when it comes to anti-gay marriage bans, the &#8220;no&#8221; votes (our side) in polls are the votes you are going to get while the &#8220;yes&#8221; and all of the &#8220;undecided&#8221; will vote yes (statistically, not individually).</p>
<p>The last poll, back in May, shows the Minnesota Marriage Ban with 39% support and 55% opposed.  Even using the above rule, it loses 45 to 55.</p>
<p>And Minnesota has one peculiarity to their propositions: to pass it must receive a majority of all voters, not just those who cast a vote on that proposition.  Those who vote for President but not one way or the other on the proposition are counted as a &#8220;no&#8221; vote.</p>
<p>To see how that could impact a vote, in 2008 7,001,084 Californians voted &#8220;yes&#8221; on Proposition 8.  That was 52.2% of all votes on the Proposition.</p>
<p>But 340,611 voters did not vote on that measure.  Were they counted as &#8220;no&#8221; votes, as Minnesota rules require, then Prop 8 would still pass, but only with 50.9% of the vote and with only a 258,991 vote lead out of 13.4 million voters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
