<?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: SCOTUS to discuss Prop 8 in November</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/29/50166/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/29/50166</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 21:06:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hyhybt</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/29/50166/comment-page-1#comment-170487</link>
		<dc:creator>Hyhybt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50166#comment-170487</guid>
		<description>Just to drag this out as long as possible... how about if they hear the case, reject the notion that having previously allowed gay marriage made California a special case, and sent it back to the 9th Circuit to consider all the stuff they said they could ignore in making their ruling?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to drag this out as long as possible&#8230; how about if they hear the case, reject the notion that having previously allowed gay marriage made California a special case, and sent it back to the 9th Circuit to consider all the stuff they said they could ignore in making their ruling?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
