<?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: Hagan responds to N.C. marriage amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 11:27:40 +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: Tar Heel</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/#comment-29434</link>
		<dc:creator>Tar Heel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=28886#comment-29434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Respectfully, is it really that hard to say, 

&quot;I am opposed to this mean-spirited, overreaching amendment that will take existing benefits away from first responders and other local employees.  This amendment goes far beyond so-called protecting marriage.  It would actively harm North Carolina citizens and lead to a legal battle due to the poorly drafted language rushed through the legislature.  I will vote no, and I urge all North Carolinians to vote no.&quot;

Anything less than saying &quot;I&#039;m opposed; vote no,&quot;  is simply not enough from anyone in any party at any level of government.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Respectfully, is it really that hard to say, </p>
<p>&#8220;I am opposed to this mean-spirited, overreaching amendment that will take existing benefits away from first responders and other local employees.  This amendment goes far beyond so-called protecting marriage.  It would actively harm North Carolina citizens and lead to a legal battle due to the poorly drafted language rushed through the legislature.  I will vote no, and I urge all North Carolinians to vote no.&#8221;</p>
<p>Anything less than saying &#8220;I&#8217;m opposed; vote no,&#8221;  is simply not enough from anyone in any party at any level of government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dr. bob</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/#comment-29389</link>
		<dc:creator>dr. bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:17:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=28886#comment-29389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So is it legal to take constitutionally guaranteed rights away from just one group of people?  I thought these were unalienable (etched in stone) non revokable rights.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So is it legal to take constitutionally guaranteed rights away from just one group of people?  I thought these were unalienable (etched in stone) non revokable rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: customartist</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/#comment-29352</link>
		<dc:creator>customartist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=28886#comment-29352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Mere Fact that The (North Carolina) Constitution did not previously have a specific ban against Gay Marriage makes the Anti-Gay Marriage LAW that is currently in effect Un-Constitutional (specifically in N. Carolina).

The fact that the GOP Legislature additionally demonstrates their understanding (albeit unadmitted) that their/NC law could not withstand a (NC) Constitutional challenge, and if it, meaning the Law itself, were capable of standing alone, then there would be no need for a Constitutional ammendment, and their current efforts to create such a ban proves this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Mere Fact that The (North Carolina) Constitution did not previously have a specific ban against Gay Marriage makes the Anti-Gay Marriage LAW that is currently in effect Un-Constitutional (specifically in N. Carolina).</p>
<p>The fact that the GOP Legislature additionally demonstrates their understanding (albeit unadmitted) that their/NC law could not withstand a (NC) Constitutional challenge, and if it, meaning the Law itself, were capable of standing alone, then there would be no need for a Constitutional ammendment, and their current efforts to create such a ban proves this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/16/hagan-responds-to-n-c-marriage-amendment/feed/ ) in 0.28721 seconds, on May 18th, 2013 at 2:43 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 18th, 2013 at 3:43 pm UTC -->