<?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: Supreme equality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/12/supreme-equality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/12/supreme-equality/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:24:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Lucas</title>
		<link>http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/12/supreme-equality/#comment-152490</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Lucas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/?p=35636#comment-152490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The only legitimate questions here are the Constitutionality of various sate laws.

There is no Constitutional right of marraige per se.  The fed should stay out of it, other then the above (yes, begs the question....but not generally).  DOMA should be scrapped except for the provision that states not be required to accept other states&#039; policies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only legitimate questions here are the Constitutionality of various sate laws.</p>
<p>There is no Constitutional right of marraige per se.  The fed should stay out of it, other then the above (yes, begs the question&#8230;.but not generally).  DOMA should be scrapped except for the provision that states not be required to accept other states&#8217; policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
