<?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: D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Rejected by Elections Board</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/</link>
	<description>68.3 Square Miles of D.C. News and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:19:23 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Crawford: DC Marriage Bill Introduced: What&#8217;s Next &#124; The Latest Liberal Blogs</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-662518</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Crawford: DC Marriage Bill Introduced: What&#8217;s Next &#124; The Latest Liberal Blogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-662518</guid>
		<description>[...] which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. A request in June by Jackson for a referendum to overturn the DC law recognizing marriages from other jurisdictions was denied using that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. A request in June by Jackson for a referendum to overturn the DC law recognizing marriages from other jurisdictions was denied using that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SlallFomoNath</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-650874</link>
		<dc:creator>SlallFomoNath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-650874</guid>
		<description>Hey, Keep up the good work!

http://emailwire.com/release/22539-Bill-Bartmann-is-The-Billionaire-Everyone-should-Know.html
http://emailwire.com/release/22537-When-Billionaire-Bill-Bartmann-Speaks-People-Listen-Business-Coach-Teaches-Success-Secrets.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, Keep up the good work!</p>
<p><a href="http://emailwire.com/release/22539-Bill-Bartmann-is-The-Billionaire-Everyone-should-Know.html" rel="nofollow">http://emailwire.com/release/22539-Bill-Bartmann-is-The-Billionaire-Everyone-should-Know.html</a><br />
<a href="http://emailwire.com/release/22537-When-Billionaire-Bill-Bartmann-Speaks-People-Listen-Business-Coach-Teaches-Success-Secrets.htm" rel="nofollow">http://emailwire.com/release/22537-When-Billionaire-Bill-Bartmann-Speaks-People-Listen-Business-Coach-Teaches-Success-Secrets.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gay Marriage in Washington, D.C.: Coming Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. - City Desk - Washington City Paper</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-619640</link>
		<dc:creator>Gay Marriage in Washington, D.C.: Coming Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. - City Desk - Washington City Paper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-619640</guid>
		<description>[...] recognition bill. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has signed it. The Board of Elections and Ethics has rejected a referendum effort aimed at overturning it. A Superior Court judge has upheld that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] recognition bill. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has signed it. The Board of Elections and Ethics has rejected a referendum effort aimed at overturning it. A Superior Court judge has upheld that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Washington,DC and Gay Marriage- An Update - Jack &#38; Jill Politics</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-602575</link>
		<dc:creator>Washington,DC and Gay Marriage- An Update - Jack &#38; Jill Politics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-602575</guid>
		<description>[...] the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected Bishop Harry Jackson&#8217;s efforts to put recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected Bishop Harry Jackson&#8217;s efforts to put recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Supporters Petition Court - City Desk - Washington City Paper</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-602315</link>
		<dc:creator>D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Supporters Petition Court - City Desk - Washington City Paper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-602315</guid>
		<description>[...] move comes two days after the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that such a referendum, to overturn a recently passed District law recognizing out-of-state gay [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] move comes two days after the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that such a referendum, to overturn a recently passed District law recognizing out-of-state gay [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scia Ciantee</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601948</link>
		<dc:creator>Scia Ciantee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601948</guid>
		<description>I would like to know what will happen when people start to realize that the judicial system does not make law, such as in the case of the Goodridge OPINION in Massachusetts.  Will D.C. and other parts of the country that want to follow suit then be allowed to vote on if gay &quot;marriage&quot; should be recognized in their respective states?

In my opinion, based on the fact that a majority of Americans STILL oppose gay &quot;marriage&quot; and are sick and tired of &quot;court appointed law&quot;, such as abortion, the next wave is a revolution of reality and common sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to know what will happen when people start to realize that the judicial system does not make law, such as in the case of the Goodridge OPINION in Massachusetts.  Will D.C. and other parts of the country that want to follow suit then be allowed to vote on if gay "marriage" should be recognized in their respective states?</p>
<p>In my opinion, based on the fact that a majority of Americans STILL oppose gay "marriage" and are sick and tired of "court appointed law", such as abortion, the next wave is a revolution of reality and common sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601734</link>
		<dc:creator>Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601734</guid>
		<description>Theocratic-induced bigotry, well put. Not my rationale, but well put nonetheless.  It is not the boxes that are for debate.  By mere existence we are all human, BUT...pay attention now...we are Male-Humans, Female-Humans by virtue of the 23rd chromosome pair.  Oh, but there is more.  By virtue of our parentage and ancestry, we are multiple ethnicities too.  By our power of choice we can align ourselves with various deities or no deity at all.  All of those Reid, represent &quot;boxes&quot;.  Some predetermined and some chosen.

As a law, nothing prohibits African-Americans (or those with high levels of melonin) from going to a tanning salon.  Nothing prohibits a woman from signing up for a prostate exam.  However, why would either.  Is it because the mere definition of tanning suggests a lack of pigmentation?  Is it because the male human has a prostate?  Maybe.  However, the bigotry that you are accusing me of is based upon a choice of GLBT to engage in what several &quot;ancient fantasy novels&quot; suggest is truly heterosexual.

I&#039;m not saying anymore about this.  Call me what you must, but I&#039;m no bigot, and I&#039;m not putting anyone in a box they haven&#039;t either been born in or chosen for themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Theocratic-induced bigotry, well put. Not my rationale, but well put nonetheless.  It is not the boxes that are for debate.  By mere existence we are all human, BUT...pay attention now...we are Male-Humans, Female-Humans by virtue of the 23rd chromosome pair.  Oh, but there is more.  By virtue of our parentage and ancestry, we are multiple ethnicities too.  By our power of choice we can align ourselves with various deities or no deity at all.  All of those Reid, represent "boxes".  Some predetermined and some chosen.</p>
<p>As a law, nothing prohibits African-Americans (or those with high levels of melonin) from going to a tanning salon.  Nothing prohibits a woman from signing up for a prostate exam.  However, why would either.  Is it because the mere definition of tanning suggests a lack of pigmentation?  Is it because the male human has a prostate?  Maybe.  However, the bigotry that you are accusing me of is based upon a choice of GLBT to engage in what several "ancient fantasy novels" suggest is truly heterosexual.</p>
<p>I'm not saying anymore about this.  Call me what you must, but I'm no bigot, and I'm not putting anyone in a box they haven't either been born in or chosen for themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reid</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601726</link>
		<dc:creator>Reid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601726</guid>
		<description>You are espousing a separate-but-equal argument where the only thing that puts one person in one box and another person in another box is their respective sexual orientation. That is a bigoted position. Whether it&#039;s supported by a book where people live for hundreds of years, survive being swallowed by whales, or walk on water (i.e. fantasy) is immaterial to the conclusion that it&#039;s a bigoted position just as if someone were to insist that Heart of Darkness taught them that blacks can be educated all they want, just as long as it&#039;s not with the whites. You have a right to maintain that position, just don&#039;t be so surprised when people criticize you harshly for your theocratic-induced bigotry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are espousing a separate-but-equal argument where the only thing that puts one person in one box and another person in another box is their respective sexual orientation. That is a bigoted position. Whether it's supported by a book where people live for hundreds of years, survive being swallowed by whales, or walk on water (i.e. fantasy) is immaterial to the conclusion that it's a bigoted position just as if someone were to insist that Heart of Darkness taught them that blacks can be educated all they want, just as long as it's not with the whites. You have a right to maintain that position, just don't be so surprised when people criticize you harshly for your theocratic-induced bigotry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601637</link>
		<dc:creator>Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:09:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601637</guid>
		<description>Reid...as this is an equal opportunity blog and I get to cite an &quot;ancient fantasy novel&quot;, let me tell you this.  For the past month I&#039;ve read articles and participated in blogs on this site that have been strewn with pig-headed GAY RIGHTS activists willing to jump down my throat about my opinion or what I have written.  Obviously you feel passionately about this subject.  Otherwise you wouldn&#039;t assault and attack me because I don&#039;t share your viewpoint.  Rather than respond unkind, let me say this --

For the record, as I&#039;ve said in other blogs, I am not anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual, or anti-transgender.  I&#039;m NOT anti-domestic partner in terms of hospital visitation, mortgages/loans, life insurance, probate, wills, and other legal documents.  The only thing I&#039;m &quot;anti&quot; is calling what GLBT who want to be in union, physically, legally, sexually with each other a &quot;marriage&quot;.  In my &quot;ancient fantasy novel&quot; it clearly defines marriage, gender, etc. in the opening chapters.  In the latter part of this &quot;ancient fantasy novel&quot;, there&#039;s this guy who comes to tell folks that stoning and killing folks just because they mess up or don&#039;t subscribe to the JEWISH LAW is wrong.  He teaches mercy, forgiveness, and other things.  In other words, no one is perfect, but we will all have a better chance at improving our lives if we follow his example of love and mercy.

Anyways, even with that, I am entitled to have whatever opinion I have regarding this issue.  But in all honesty, my opinion should be of no consequence to you because I was specifically addressing someone else&#039;s post.

I am NOT naive when it comes to Civil and the buzz word &quot;Human Rights&quot; either.  However, please stop making the basic mistaken argument that the Women&#039;s issues/ERA (breaking the glass ceiling), racism (and overturning segregation), and religious discrimination (you know folks who read &quot;ancient fantasy&quot; novels) tenents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were inclusive of same-sex marriage.  I never heard Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, SNCC, NOW, Gloria Steinem, ADL, etc. make that part of their platform(s).

I&#039;ve seen the footage of Selma and been in Montgomery County THIS year and experienced some good ol&#039; fashioned discrimination/racism from a cop no less.  I am not screaming bloody murder because of legislation, but understand that no law or statute can make anyone accept another person.  It may enforce discrimination, but it doesn&#039;t have the power to change a person&#039;s mind or force them to think a certain way.  That, much like what I learned from the &quot;ancient fantasy novel&quot; is free choice.  

If someone looks at this blog from years to come, what they will read from my posts is not that of a bigot.  They will read someone who is TOLERANT of other folks, but has can have an open mind and differing opinion too.  

In terms of &quot;you’re going to lose and you might as well step away from your bigoted position now and start at least pretending that you never really felt that way all along.&quot; please understand that I&#039;m not in this to win or lose anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reid...as this is an equal opportunity blog and I get to cite an "ancient fantasy novel", let me tell you this.  For the past month I've read articles and participated in blogs on this site that have been strewn with pig-headed GAY RIGHTS activists willing to jump down my throat about my opinion or what I have written.  Obviously you feel passionately about this subject.  Otherwise you wouldn't assault and attack me because I don't share your viewpoint.  Rather than respond unkind, let me say this --</p>
<p>For the record, as I've said in other blogs, I am not anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual, or anti-transgender.  I'm NOT anti-domestic partner in terms of hospital visitation, mortgages/loans, life insurance, probate, wills, and other legal documents.  The only thing I'm "anti" is calling what GLBT who want to be in union, physically, legally, sexually with each other a "marriage".  In my "ancient fantasy novel" it clearly defines marriage, gender, etc. in the opening chapters.  In the latter part of this "ancient fantasy novel", there's this guy who comes to tell folks that stoning and killing folks just because they mess up or don't subscribe to the JEWISH LAW is wrong.  He teaches mercy, forgiveness, and other things.  In other words, no one is perfect, but we will all have a better chance at improving our lives if we follow his example of love and mercy.</p>
<p>Anyways, even with that, I am entitled to have whatever opinion I have regarding this issue.  But in all honesty, my opinion should be of no consequence to you because I was specifically addressing someone else's post.</p>
<p>I am NOT naive when it comes to Civil and the buzz word "Human Rights" either.  However, please stop making the basic mistaken argument that the Women's issues/ERA (breaking the glass ceiling), racism (and overturning segregation), and religious discrimination (you know folks who read "ancient fantasy" novels) tenents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were inclusive of same-sex marriage.  I never heard Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, SNCC, NOW, Gloria Steinem, ADL, etc. make that part of their platform(s).</p>
<p>I've seen the footage of Selma and been in Montgomery County THIS year and experienced some good ol' fashioned discrimination/racism from a cop no less.  I am not screaming bloody murder because of legislation, but understand that no law or statute can make anyone accept another person.  It may enforce discrimination, but it doesn't have the power to change a person's mind or force them to think a certain way.  That, much like what I learned from the "ancient fantasy novel" is free choice.  </p>
<p>If someone looks at this blog from years to come, what they will read from my posts is not that of a bigot.  They will read someone who is TOLERANT of other folks, but has can have an open mind and differing opinion too.  </p>
<p>In terms of "you’re going to lose and you might as well step away from your bigoted position now and start at least pretending that you never really felt that way all along." please understand that I'm not in this to win or lose anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: abuzznDC</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601630</link>
		<dc:creator>abuzznDC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601630</guid>
		<description>This is truly a shame and a travesty that such an issue has monopolized so much time and effort of our elected officials that could have been focused elsewhere and on issues that truly are in the interest and of the benefit of everyone.

Emblematic as the film &quot;Lifeboat&quot; where our desires of  wanting to be inclusive and helpful are not enough and that political stances are  wrongly overshadows other social issues which stalemates and threatens any progress in more pressing matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is truly a shame and a travesty that such an issue has monopolized so much time and effort of our elected officials that could have been focused elsewhere and on issues that truly are in the interest and of the benefit of everyone.</p>
<p>Emblematic as the film "Lifeboat" where our desires of  wanting to be inclusive and helpful are not enough and that political stances are  wrongly overshadows other social issues which stalemates and threatens any progress in more pressing matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reid</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601604</link>
		<dc:creator>Reid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601604</guid>
		<description>&quot;They weren’t trying to get married, just trying to keep from being discriminated against.&quot;

The fact you don&#039;t see an inherent contradiction here is why you will not understand why it is right to have marriage equality. You will go on hating in your bigoted way and someday people will look back these blog posts and their comments and shake their heads at how unbelievably stupid and hateful your position is.

Go back and watch footage of Birmingham in the 1950s and 60s. As a historical matter, you will be remembered just as the nameless white faces who screamed bloody murder when a black student joined their childrens&#039; schools. Cite to some ancient fantasy novel all you want, you&#039;re going to lose and you might as well step away from your bigoted position now and start at least pretending that you never really felt that way all along.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"They weren’t trying to get married, just trying to keep from being discriminated against."</p>
<p>The fact you don't see an inherent contradiction here is why you will not understand why it is right to have marriage equality. You will go on hating in your bigoted way and someday people will look back these blog posts and their comments and shake their heads at how unbelievably stupid and hateful your position is.</p>
<p>Go back and watch footage of Birmingham in the 1950s and 60s. As a historical matter, you will be remembered just as the nameless white faces who screamed bloody murder when a black student joined their childrens' schools. Cite to some ancient fantasy novel all you want, you're going to lose and you might as well step away from your bigoted position now and start at least pretending that you never really felt that way all along.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601537</link>
		<dc:creator>Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601537</guid>
		<description>GpressNPS, what is your point?  That the Holy Bible text makes reference to homosexuals...duh, even a neophyte Bible Study student knows that.  Christ (based on my reading and interpretation) made no DISTINCTION in SIN either (except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost -- another discussion entirely).  His REPEATED prescription for those whom He FORGAVE (or in this case healed) was to REPENT.  Affection for one&#039;s servant, brother, etc. is tolerated under the Bible, but sexual immorality (hetero or homo) isn&#039;t.  Love isn&#039;t described biblically based on any gender.  However, marriage IS.  Having Christians accept and LOVE one another is one thing.  Having Christians (and those of the way) accept same-sex marriage is another.  Don&#039;t get it twisted.

Finally, if you&#039;ve read this far I encourage you to read Mark 12:19-33, and Matthew 22:23-40.  Both deal with &quot;marriage&quot; in the hearafter and LOVING your neighbor.  Something both heterosexuals and homosexuals cand learn from.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GpressNPS, what is your point?  That the Holy Bible text makes reference to homosexuals...duh, even a neophyte Bible Study student knows that.  Christ (based on my reading and interpretation) made no DISTINCTION in SIN either (except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost -- another discussion entirely).  His REPEATED prescription for those whom He FORGAVE (or in this case healed) was to REPENT.  Affection for one's servant, brother, etc. is tolerated under the Bible, but sexual immorality (hetero or homo) isn't.  Love isn't described biblically based on any gender.  However, marriage IS.  Having Christians accept and LOVE one another is one thing.  Having Christians (and those of the way) accept same-sex marriage is another.  Don't get it twisted.</p>
<p>Finally, if you've read this far I encourage you to read Mark 12:19-33, and Matthew 22:23-40.  Both deal with "marriage" in the hearafter and LOVING your neighbor.  Something both heterosexuals and homosexuals cand learn from.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big-K</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601495</link>
		<dc:creator>Big-K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601495</guid>
		<description>Oh well, looks like the back door lovers and wanna be men can rejoice in a shallow victory, does&#039;t mean acceptance just another rung in an attempt to change nature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh well, looks like the back door lovers and wanna be men can rejoice in a shallow victory, does't mean acceptance just another rung in an attempt to change nature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-601248</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-601248</guid>
		<description>Hmmm, I do not agree with taking away rights of individuals once they have recieved them. However, those rights were not granted in Washington, DC unlike California where I fully support those who were married before prop 8. Also there are legal boundaries in regards to laws and how they apply from state to state unlike federal laws.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm, I do not agree with taking away rights of individuals once they have recieved them. However, those rights were not granted in Washington, DC unlike California where I fully support those who were married before prop 8. Also there are legal boundaries in regards to laws and how they apply from state to state unlike federal laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Looks More Likely, D.C. Election Board Rejects Referendum &#124; Outside the Gates</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/15/dc-gay-marriage-referendum-rejected-by-elections-board/comment-page-1/#comment-600740</link>
		<dc:creator>Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Looks More Likely, D.C. Election Board Rejects Referendum &#124; Outside the Gates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24332#comment-600740</guid>
		<description>[...] Opponents of gay marriage faced a major setback today as The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decided to reject a referendum on whether the District should or should not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states this afternoon, the City Desk reports. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Opponents of gay marriage faced a major setback today as The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decided to reject a referendum on whether the District should or should not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states this afternoon, the City Desk reports. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

