<?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: Focus on the Family loses latest heavy-handed battle to ban gay marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage</link>
	<description>News you can&#039;t get anywhere else</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:03:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-34741</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-34741</guid>
		<description>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &quot;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&quot;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &quot;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&quot;   So, basically...when they don&#039;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#039;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &quot;special&quot; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &quot;protect marriage&quot; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &#8220;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&#8221;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &#8220;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&#8221;   So, basically&#8230;when they don&#39;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.</p>
<p>Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#39;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &#8220;special&#8221; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &#8220;protect marriage&#8221; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FlexSF</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-34742</link>
		<dc:creator>FlexSF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-34742</guid>
		<description>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#039;s private life. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rise up against these idiots, America!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#39;s private life. </p>
<p>Rise up against these idiots, America!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolishBear</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-34743</link>
		<dc:creator>PolishBear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-34743</guid>
		<description>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#039;s more important, the word &quot;marriage&quot; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &quot;civil unions.&quot; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &quot;marriage&quot; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here&#039;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#039;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#039;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &quot;civil union&quot; would allow us to do this, I&#039;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#39;s more important, the word &#8220;marriage&#8221; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &#8220;civil unions.&#8221; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &#8220;marriage&#8221; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.</p>
<p>Here&#39;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#39;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#39;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. </p>
<p>At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.</p>
<p>At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &#8220;civil union&#8221; would allow us to do this, I&#39;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25017</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-25017</guid>
		<description>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &quot;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&quot;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &quot;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&quot;   So, basically...when they don&#039;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#039;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &quot;special&quot; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &quot;protect marriage&quot; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &#8220;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&#8221;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &#8220;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&#8221;   So, basically&#8230;when they don&#39;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.</p>
<p>Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#39;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &#8220;special&#8221; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &#8220;protect marriage&#8221; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FlexSF</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25016</link>
		<dc:creator>FlexSF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-25016</guid>
		<description>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#039;s private life. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rise up against these idiots, America!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#39;s private life. </p>
<p>Rise up against these idiots, America!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolishBear</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25015</link>
		<dc:creator>PolishBear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-25015</guid>
		<description>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#039;s more important, the word &quot;marriage&quot; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &quot;civil unions.&quot; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &quot;marriage&quot; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here&#039;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#039;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#039;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &quot;civil union&quot; would allow us to do this, I&#039;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#39;s more important, the word &#8220;marriage&#8221; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &#8220;civil unions.&#8221; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &#8220;marriage&#8221; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.</p>
<p>Here&#39;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#39;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#39;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. </p>
<p>At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.</p>
<p>At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &#8220;civil union&#8221; would allow us to do this, I&#39;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-21563</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-21563</guid>
		<description>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &quot;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&quot;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &quot;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&quot;   So, basically...when they don&#039;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#039;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &quot;special&quot; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &quot;protect marriage&quot; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow!  The conservatives are at it again!  If the courts claim gays can get married, the conservatives cry &#8220;Foul!  Those are activist judges.  The legislature should decide!&#8221;  Then when the legislature decides, they cry &#8220;Foul!  Elitist legislators!  The people should decide!&#8221;   So, basically&#8230;when they don&#39;t get what they want, they whine and look for another excuse to keep the status quo.</p>
<p>Gay marriage is NOT about special rights!  It&#39;s equal rights!  Keeping marriage for heterosexuals ONLY is special rights.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first two definitions of  &#8220;special&#8221; are defined as  1) being in some way superior, and 2) held in particular esteem.  The way conservatives fight to &#8220;protect marriage&#8221; sure makes is sound like they are protecting THEIR special rights.  Hypocrites!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FlexSF</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-21559</link>
		<dc:creator>FlexSF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-21559</guid>
		<description>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#039;s private life. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rise up against these idiots, America!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The religious inquisitionists will remain constipated, and orgasm-less, until they have imposed their pious filth into everyone&#39;s private life. </p>
<p>Rise up against these idiots, America!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PolishBear</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/21409/focus-loses-latest-heavy-handed-battle-to-ban-gay-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-21557</link>
		<dc:creator>PolishBear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coloradoindependent.com/?p=21409#comment-21557</guid>
		<description>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#039;s more important, the word &quot;marriage&quot; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &quot;civil unions.&quot; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &quot;marriage&quot; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here&#039;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#039;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#039;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &quot;civil union&quot; would allow us to do this, I&#039;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what&#39;s more important, the word &#8220;marriage&#8221; or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is &#8220;civil unions.&#8221; If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term &#8220;marriage&#8221; for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.</p>
<p>Here&#39;s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I&#39;m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I&#39;m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death. </p>
<p>At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.</p>
<p>At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a &#8220;civil union&#8221; would allow us to do this, I&#39;m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

