<?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: Quote Of The Day &#8211; 5 Years Of Gay Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2009/05/10/quote-of-the-day-5-years-of-gay-marriage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/05/10/quote-of-the-day-5-years-of-gay-marriage/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: wj</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/05/10/quote-of-the-day-5-years-of-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-462128</link>
		<dc:creator>wj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 23:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=14784#comment-462128</guid>
		<description>Hey, Michael, with computer software you could just do a global change on everywhere in the laws of all 50 states (plus all the territories, and probably some cities and counties, not to mention all the Federal laws and regulations).  And then have all of them add a law saying that what every other country in the world calls marriage will be deemed to be equivalent to what is now called &quot;xxx&quot; in the United States.  Shouldn&#039;t take more than a couple of years -- except for those places where &quot;marriage&quot; or &quot;married&quot; made it into a state constitution, which might take longer.

Piece of cake.  Compared to the overwhelming trauma of just using the word marriage and getting on with it.  I mean, no other word has ever had its meaning evolve over time, has it?  (OK, other than the economic meaning of &quot;liberal&quot; in the 1800s becoming what is now termed &quot;fiscal conservative.&quot;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, Michael, with computer software you could just do a global change on everywhere in the laws of all 50 states (plus all the territories, and probably some cities and counties, not to mention all the Federal laws and regulations).  And then have all of them add a law saying that what every other country in the world calls marriage will be deemed to be equivalent to what is now called &#8220;xxx&#8221; in the United States.  Shouldn&#8217;t take more than a couple of years &#8212; except for those places where &#8220;marriage&#8221; or &#8220;married&#8221; made it into a state constitution, which might take longer.</p>
<p>Piece of cake.  Compared to the overwhelming trauma of just using the word marriage and getting on with it.  I mean, no other word has ever had its meaning evolve over time, has it?  (OK, other than the economic meaning of &#8220;liberal&#8221; in the 1800s becoming what is now termed &#8220;fiscal conservative.&#8221;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael reynolds</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/05/10/quote-of-the-day-5-years-of-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-462070</link>
		<dc:creator>michael reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=14784#comment-462070</guid>
		<description>Mike:

Why?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike:</p>
<p>Why?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Casey</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/05/10/quote-of-the-day-5-years-of-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-461980</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 21:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=14784#comment-461980</guid>
		<description>I think that gay couples should have all the benefits that straight couples do with finance, hospital visits, etc.  My only objection is that I do not think that their union should be called &quot;marriage.&quot;  Call it anything else, but I think that term should be reserved for natural heterosexual couples.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that gay couples should have all the benefits that straight couples do with finance, hospital visits, etc.  My only objection is that I do not think that their union should be called &#8220;marriage.&#8221;  Call it anything else, but I think that term should be reserved for natural heterosexual couples.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

