<?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: Cummings to vote &#8216;in support&#8217; of Md. same-sex marriage law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 05:19:22 +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: Norton: Something 'important happened' during 2012 election &#124; Washington Blade - America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/#comment-82434</link>
		<dc:creator>Norton: Something 'important happened' during 2012 election &#124; Washington Blade - America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=51519#comment-82434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Elijah Cummings, whose parents were Pentecostal ministers, told the Washington Blade last month he identified with Obama’s evolution on marriage rights for same-sex couples. He said during a second interview outside a Baltimore polling place on Election Day that Biden’s [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Elijah Cummings, whose parents were Pentecostal ministers, told the Washington Blade last month he identified with Obama’s evolution on marriage rights for same-sex couples. He said during a second interview outside a Baltimore polling place on Election Day that Biden’s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jenn</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/#comment-80113</link>
		<dc:creator>jenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=51519#comment-80113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[see, this is where i get angry. she says &quot;Marriage by definition is a holy union...&quot; and this is where we are no longer speaking the same language. nobody is asking you to change your holy books, your religious beliefs. if people in leadership positions within religious groups want to open the conversation, more power to them. but whatever book she is claiming to be reading that defines marriage however way she believes it is defined is not up for debate right now. and it is certainly not a book that i read or believe in. this is a legal issue, not a religious one. if you are trying to claim that religious marriage and legal marriage should be completely distinct, this is an argument i absolutely agree with. and believe it or not, this is already the case... there are plenty of religious marriages between people who do not have a legal marriage license, either by choice or because they are not afforded the right. and there are plenty of people who get married down at ye olde courthouse, or on ships, or by a close friend or relative that was &quot;ordained&quot; on the internet in 17 seconds, who choose not to have a religious wedding ceremony - or who have such a ceremony at a different time, in a different state, even in another country. so about marriage being, by definition, a holy union... unless you are marching against legal marriage licenses, with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, or against divorce, or kardashian and/or spearsian nuptials, you have no argument. i&#039;d say try again, but there is no legal argument that can be made without bringing religion and fear-mongering into it. &quot;but jesus said..!&quot; i&#039;m jewish, try again. &quot;but two boys can&#039;t make babies!&quot; when you get married, you aren&#039;t required to sign a form swearing to procreate, nor must you attach a doctor&#039;s note swearing you&#039;re not infertile, try again. &quot;but THE CHILDREN!&quot; no studies to support you, try again. still waiting for a logic-based argument, founded in law, with peer-edited studies to support it. i won&#039;t hold my breath.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>see, this is where i get angry. she says &#8220;Marriage by definition is a holy union&#8230;&#8221; and this is where we are no longer speaking the same language. nobody is asking you to change your holy books, your religious beliefs. if people in leadership positions within religious groups want to open the conversation, more power to them. but whatever book she is claiming to be reading that defines marriage however way she believes it is defined is not up for debate right now. and it is certainly not a book that i read or believe in. this is a legal issue, not a religious one. if you are trying to claim that religious marriage and legal marriage should be completely distinct, this is an argument i absolutely agree with. and believe it or not, this is already the case&#8230; there are plenty of religious marriages between people who do not have a legal marriage license, either by choice or because they are not afforded the right. and there are plenty of people who get married down at ye olde courthouse, or on ships, or by a close friend or relative that was &#8220;ordained&#8221; on the internet in 17 seconds, who choose not to have a religious wedding ceremony &#8211; or who have such a ceremony at a different time, in a different state, even in another country. so about marriage being, by definition, a holy union&#8230; unless you are marching against legal marriage licenses, with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, or against divorce, or kardashian and/or spearsian nuptials, you have no argument. i&#8217;d say try again, but there is no legal argument that can be made without bringing religion and fear-mongering into it. &#8220;but jesus said..!&#8221; i&#8217;m jewish, try again. &#8220;but two boys can&#8217;t make babies!&#8221; when you get married, you aren&#8217;t required to sign a form swearing to procreate, nor must you attach a doctor&#8217;s note swearing you&#8217;re not infertile, try again. &#8220;but THE CHILDREN!&#8221; no studies to support you, try again. still waiting for a logic-based argument, founded in law, with peer-edited studies to support it. i won&#8217;t hold my breath.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Carvalho</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/#comment-79134</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Carvalho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=51519#comment-79134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That is an insanely old picture.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is an insanely old picture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/25/cummings-to-vote-in-support-of-md-same-sex-marriage-law/feed/ ) in 0.30168 seconds, on May 20th, 2013 at 5:04 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 20th, 2013 at 6:04 pm UTC -->