<?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: Boehner denies DOMA contract violates law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/03/boehner-denies-doma-contract-violates-statute/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/03/boehner-denies-doma-contract-violates-statute/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 23:40:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Little Man</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/03/boehner-denies-doma-contract-violates-statute/#comment-24639</link>
		<dc:creator>Little Man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=24285#comment-24639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ARTICLE BEGS THE QUESTION:
&quot;after the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the anti-gay law in court&quot;

DOMA has not been shown to be anti-gay (whatever gay means), because DOMA does not provide federal benefits to other types of couples, aside from gay couples.

For instance, it also leaves so called Lesbian couples out. Further, it leaves other same-gender couples out too - room mates in college who&#039;d like some extra Fed. benefits during this bad economy; and also leaves minors out (and some minors are getting married too), and laws like this leave blood-related couples out. Actually, it leaves everyone out (polygamists) who wants to form a friendship supported by the government. A law has to be just, and it has to be enforceable. DOMA draws the line at man and woman (and by that it means adult human beings). If we are re-defining &quot;marriage&quot;, then everyone is invited to redefine it to their own advantage. 

The problem is that it is impossible to have exact equality, because we are not all equally qualified.

BUT, where&#039;s all the money from the Feds. to cover benefits for all the newly included &quot;marriages&quot;? Need a Resident Visa for an alien friend, cheap? Redefine &quot;marriage&quot;, ignore the needs of children in this country, and PRESTO, we can bring millions into US citizenship and into this country, ... legally. That&#039;s not going to happen.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ARTICLE BEGS THE QUESTION:<br />
&#8220;after the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the anti-gay law in court&#8221;</p>
<p>DOMA has not been shown to be anti-gay (whatever gay means), because DOMA does not provide federal benefits to other types of couples, aside from gay couples.</p>
<p>For instance, it also leaves so called Lesbian couples out. Further, it leaves other same-gender couples out too &#8211; room mates in college who&#8217;d like some extra Fed. benefits during this bad economy; and also leaves minors out (and some minors are getting married too), and laws like this leave blood-related couples out. Actually, it leaves everyone out (polygamists) who wants to form a friendship supported by the government. A law has to be just, and it has to be enforceable. DOMA draws the line at man and woman (and by that it means adult human beings). If we are re-defining &#8220;marriage&#8221;, then everyone is invited to redefine it to their own advantage. </p>
<p>The problem is that it is impossible to have exact equality, because we are not all equally qualified.</p>
<p>BUT, where&#8217;s all the money from the Feds. to cover benefits for all the newly included &#8220;marriages&#8221;? Need a Resident Visa for an alien friend, cheap? Redefine &#8220;marriage&#8221;, ignore the needs of children in this country, and PRESTO, we can bring millions into US citizenship and into this country, &#8230; legally. That&#8217;s not going to happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter the saint</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/03/boehner-denies-doma-contract-violates-statute/#comment-24503</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter the saint</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=24285#comment-24503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[C&#039;mon Issa, did he break the law or not?! Is it ok for REPUBLICANS to break our nation&#039;s laws? But not Democrats? Shouldn&#039;t there be an inquisition--- uhh, I mean, INQUIRY? Ya think? ;)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>C&#8217;mon Issa, did he break the law or not?! Is it ok for REPUBLICANS to break our nation&#8217;s laws? But not Democrats? Shouldn&#8217;t there be an inquisition&#8212; uhh, I mean, INQUIRY? Ya think? ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/03/boehner-denies-doma-contract-violates-statute/feed/ ) in 0.38930 seconds, on May 21st, 2013 at 7:55 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 21st, 2013 at 8:55 am UTC -->