<?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: Don&#8217;t force Sulu to divorce</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/</link>
	<description>Enjoy worrying in the new year</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-585</link>
		<dc:creator>Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 23:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-585</guid>
		<description>Sulu has such a silky voice. I wish I could listen to it every day... in some other format than Howard Stern's show.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sulu has such a silky voice. I wish I could listen to it every day&#8230; in some other format than Howard Stern&#8217;s show.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-582</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 02:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-582</guid>
		<description>Good point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 00:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-581</guid>
		<description>It's going to be brought up, but I don't think it will matter.

Just a hunch, but the people that won't vote for Obama because of gay rights issues probably wouldn't vote for him because he's black.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s going to be brought up, but I don&#8217;t think it will matter.</p>
<p>Just a hunch, but the people that won&#8217;t vote for Obama because of gay rights issues probably wouldn&#8217;t vote for him because he&#8217;s black.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-580</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 21:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-580</guid>
		<description>I think its really unfortunate that you know this legalization thing in CA is going to brought up as a topic in the upcoming general election and it will be used to galvanize the right behind McCain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think its really unfortunate that you know this legalization thing in CA is going to brought up as a topic in the upcoming general election and it will be used to galvanize the right behind McCain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-578</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 15:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-578</guid>
		<description>I think the federal constitutional amendment thing is just a threat. It'd be far too difficult to get something like that passed IMO.

Like I said. It's a way for Republicans to make political hay without having to actually do anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the federal constitutional amendment thing is just a threat. It&#8217;d be far too difficult to get something like that passed IMO.</p>
<p>Like I said. It&#8217;s a way for Republicans to make political hay without having to actually do anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-577</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 14:52:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-577</guid>
		<description>I agree with you as long as the state and federal constitutions remain unchanged.  I sincerely hope we never have an amendment added to make marriage only between a man and a woman, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did someday make it in there.  Theres a lot of people against gay marriage in this country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you as long as the state and federal constitutions remain unchanged.  I sincerely hope we never have an amendment added to make marriage only between a man and a woman, but I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if it did someday make it in there.  Theres a lot of people against gay marriage in this country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-576</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 14:08:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-576</guid>
		<description>Ian,
You're totally right.

I think there are two things that make gay marriage an inevitable reality in all 50 states.

1) It's become a civil rights issue

2) The states that legalized gay marriage didn't fall into anarchy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian,<br />
You&#8217;re totally right.</p>
<p>I think there are two things that make gay marriage an inevitable reality in all 50 states.</p>
<p>1) It&#8217;s become a civil rights issue</p>
<p>2) The states that legalized gay marriage didn&#8217;t fall into anarchy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/05/23/dont-force-sulu-to-divorce/comment-page-1/#comment-575</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/?p=197#comment-575</guid>
		<description>I don't think its judges undermining democracy at all, thats just scapegoating.  The judges can only work from the state and federal constitutions that exist, so if a given law conflicts with that, you can't blame the judges if they strike it down.  If there is any wiggle room in the wording of those constitutions that allows a judge to be "activist", change the constitutions to take out that wiggle room.

That said, I hope the constitutions aren't changed like that.  Denying gays the right to marry is blatant discrimination and making them call it "civil union" is just separate-but-equal all over again.  You can't even make the "undermining the institution of marriage" argument without sounding like a total crock.  That argument has no way of really being made in court, only public opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think its judges undermining democracy at all, thats just scapegoating.  The judges can only work from the state and federal constitutions that exist, so if a given law conflicts with that, you can&#8217;t blame the judges if they strike it down.  If there is any wiggle room in the wording of those constitutions that allows a judge to be &#8220;activist&#8221;, change the constitutions to take out that wiggle room.</p>
<p>That said, I hope the constitutions aren&#8217;t changed like that.  Denying gays the right to marry is blatant discrimination and making them call it &#8220;civil union&#8221; is just separate-but-equal all over again.  You can&#8217;t even make the &#8220;undermining the institution of marriage&#8221; argument without sounding like a total crock.  That argument has no way of really being made in court, only public opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
