<?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: From 1961 to 2012: Today&#8217;s Victories Were A Long Time Coming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:09:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark F.</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175103</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175103</guid>
		<description>Even without court action, I am confident that even the citizens of Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma will be okay with same sex marriage in 2032. It won&#039;t be &quot;generations.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even without court action, I am confident that even the citizens of Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma will be okay with same sex marriage in 2032. It won&#8217;t be &#8220;generations.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark F.</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175100</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175100</guid>
		<description>&quot;If you compare marriage equality for Same Sex couples to the inter-racial marriage, you will see that when Loving v. Virginia passed, only around 20% of Americans approved of inter-racial marriage. But national polls show that same sex marriages are approved by a plurality, if not an outright majority.&quot;

There is a difference between disapproving of something and thinking that it should be illegal, so I question whether 80% of the populastion really thought interracial marriages should be illegal at the time of Loving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If you compare marriage equality for Same Sex couples to the inter-racial marriage, you will see that when Loving v. Virginia passed, only around 20% of Americans approved of inter-racial marriage. But national polls show that same sex marriages are approved by a plurality, if not an outright majority.&#8221;</p>
<p>There is a difference between disapproving of something and thinking that it should be illegal, so I question whether 80% of the populastion really thought interracial marriages should be illegal at the time of Loving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IT</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175093</link>
		<dc:creator>IT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175093</guid>
		<description>If you compare marriage equality for Same Sex couples to the inter-racial marriage, you will see that when Loving v. Virginia passed, only around 20% of Americans approved of inter-racial marriage.  But national polls show that same sex marriages are approved by a plurality, if not an outright majority.

it is also the case that in 2011, there were still a number of people (ca 15%) who disapprove of inter-racial marriage.

The trend lines for approval of SSM actually track pretty well with inter-racial marriage trends in terms of the slope.  The difference?  By the time they got to our levels, inter-racial marriages had been legal for over 20 years.

I figure we need a few more states to be decisive electorally, and then a suit will come against Clause TWO of DOMA (it&#039;s only 3 under challenge now).  And hopefully we will have the court to overturn it.

http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/2012/04/inter-racial-marriage-vs-same-sex.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you compare marriage equality for Same Sex couples to the inter-racial marriage, you will see that when Loving v. Virginia passed, only around 20% of Americans approved of inter-racial marriage.  But national polls show that same sex marriages are approved by a plurality, if not an outright majority.</p>
<p>it is also the case that in 2011, there were still a number of people (ca 15%) who disapprove of inter-racial marriage.</p>
<p>The trend lines for approval of SSM actually track pretty well with inter-racial marriage trends in terms of the slope.  The difference?  By the time they got to our levels, inter-racial marriages had been legal for over 20 years.</p>
<p>I figure we need a few more states to be decisive electorally, and then a suit will come against Clause TWO of DOMA (it&#8217;s only 3 under challenge now).  And hopefully we will have the court to overturn it.</p>
<p><a href="http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/2012/04/inter-racial-marriage-vs-same-sex.html" rel="nofollow">http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/2012/04/inter-racial-marriage-vs-same-sex.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lindoro Almaviva</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175075</link>
		<dc:creator>Lindoro Almaviva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175075</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In fact, there are some states where that will never happen&lt;/i&gt;

Not so. at one point or another the SCOTUS will be forced to take on the issue because of the inequal way that we are treated from state t0 state. 

At one point, the SCOTUS wull have to decide whether it is OK for SC to prevent their gay citizens to marry while NY is OK while at the same tim IN remains inactive on the issue. 

At some point the SCOTUS will have the take on the issue that in NY they call is marriage while somewhere else they call it &quot;Civil union&quot;, with all the segregationist implications that brings.

To be honest, I think we have enough to bring a federal class action suit that will legalize marriage accross the USA. the only think we are waiting for is the person with balls of steel to take on the fight.

That day, we will be ale to marry no matter what state we are in, and there is nothing that NOM or any of their friends will be ale to do about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>In fact, there are some states where that will never happen</i></p>
<p>Not so. at one point or another the SCOTUS will be forced to take on the issue because of the inequal way that we are treated from state t0 state. </p>
<p>At one point, the SCOTUS wull have to decide whether it is OK for SC to prevent their gay citizens to marry while NY is OK while at the same tim IN remains inactive on the issue. </p>
<p>At some point the SCOTUS will have the take on the issue that in NY they call is marriage while somewhere else they call it &#8220;Civil union&#8221;, with all the segregationist implications that brings.</p>
<p>To be honest, I think we have enough to bring a federal class action suit that will legalize marriage accross the USA. the only think we are waiting for is the person with balls of steel to take on the fight.</p>
<p>That day, we will be ale to marry no matter what state we are in, and there is nothing that NOM or any of their friends will be ale to do about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerry</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175071</link>
		<dc:creator>jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175071</guid>
		<description>Part of me wants to find every anti-gay person in the nation and gloat.  The bigger part of me is savoring the results of yesterday&#039;s election as one more step in the nation living up to the promises of the DofI and the Constitution.

And a part of me is delirious that the nation can not be bought with huge amounts of money and ugliness and lies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of me wants to find every anti-gay person in the nation and gloat.  The bigger part of me is savoring the results of yesterday&#8217;s election as one more step in the nation living up to the promises of the DofI and the Constitution.</p>
<p>And a part of me is delirious that the nation can not be bought with huge amounts of money and ugliness and lies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175069</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175069</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget that if the Supreme Court passes on Prop 8, California will have same-sex marriage (again), possibly as soon as December... so (fingers crossed in CA and WA) that&#039;s 10 states and a district with marriage equality in the US totaling 87 million people-- 28% of the national population. A big deal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget that if the Supreme Court passes on Prop 8, California will have same-sex marriage (again), possibly as soon as December&#8230; so (fingers crossed in CA and WA) that&#8217;s 10 states and a district with marriage equality in the US totaling 87 million people&#8211; 28% of the national population. A big deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175053</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175053</guid>
		<description>I guess the spell-checker missed that, didn&#039;t it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess the spell-checker missed that, didn&#8217;t it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Cross</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175043</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Cross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175043</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the post; the editor in me wants to point out that it is &quot;tide&quot; not &quot;tied&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post; the editor in me wants to point out that it is &#8220;tide&#8221; not &#8220;tied&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175035</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175035</guid>
		<description>Democrats also held Iowa State Senate so no chance of anti-SSM referendum there until at least 2018, which means it probably will never happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Democrats also held Iowa State Senate so no chance of anti-SSM referendum there until at least 2018, which means it probably will never happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WildwoodGuy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/07/50667/comment-page-1#comment-175026</link>
		<dc:creator>WildwoodGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=50667#comment-175026</guid>
		<description>Jim,

You wrote &quot;it will also take some key court victories before all Americans are created equal. &quot;

I would have to disagree with you.  We Americans are already created equal;  we simply are not TREATED equal.

Otherwise, fully agree with you.

WildwoodGuy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>You wrote &#8220;it will also take some key court victories before all Americans are created equal. &#8221;</p>
<p>I would have to disagree with you.  We Americans are already created equal;  we simply are not TREATED equal.</p>
<p>Otherwise, fully agree with you.</p>
<p>WildwoodGuy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
