<?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: DOMA Challenged</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/</link>
	<description>Same dork, new year!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:26:26 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Clinton on Marriage</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-1337</link>
		<dc:creator>Clinton on Marriage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-1337</guid>
		<description>[...] the Gill lawsuit &#8212; challenging the federal definition of marriage &#8212; would not have been filed.  So, to that extent, it&#8217;s completely disingenuous for Clinton to say such a thing.  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Gill lawsuit &#8212; challenging the federal definition of marriage &#8212; would not have been filed.  So, to that extent, it&#8217;s completely disingenuous for Clinton to say such a thing.  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GLAD&#8217;s Mary Bonauto Talks About DOMA Briefs &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>GLAD&#8217;s Mary Bonauto Talks About DOMA Briefs &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-56</guid>
		<description>[...] GLAD has filed the very smart Gill v. Office of Personnel Management case, which I discussed here and over at the ACSblog.  You can find all the info you want about the case, including [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] GLAD has filed the very smart Gill v. Office of Personnel Management case, which I discussed here and over at the ACSblog.  You can find all the info you want about the case, including [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The DNC Fundraiser &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>The DNC Fundraiser &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-55</guid>
		<description>[...] his mistake, which I am sure will be reflected in the brief that will be filed in the MA [Gill] case on June 29th.  Sometimes it takes an ardent supporter to convey a message.  I felt I was [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] his mistake, which I am sure will be reflected in the brief that will be filed in the MA [Gill] case on June 29th.  Sometimes it takes an ardent supporter to convey a message.  I felt I was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The DNC Fund-Raiser &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>The DNC Fund-Raiser &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-54</guid>
		<description>[...] his mistake, which I am sure will be reflected in the brief that will be filed in the MA [Gill] case on June 29th.  Sometimes it takes an ardent supporter to convey a message.  I felt I was [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] his mistake, which I am sure will be reflected in the brief that will be filed in the MA [Gill] case on June 29th.  Sometimes it takes an ardent supporter to convey a message.  I felt I was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fitz</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Fitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-53</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; &quot;I don&#039;t know how to explain it, other than to just say it.  Reading that is painful.  It hurts.  I was working in the Clinton White House the summer that DOMA was being debated.  It&#039;s hard -- but good -- to see how so much has changed that this could go from being an unfortunate reality to a seeming anomaly of discrimination.&quot; &lt;/i&gt;

Well you should explain it. How does a law reacting to a change in a foundational social institution &quot;hurt&quot; you?

A simple definition that has stood and is commonly understood &quot;hurts&quot; you?

And you keep throwing around &quot;discrimination&quot; as if you’re not a lawyer. As if the law discriminating in necessarily a bad thing.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don&#039;t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.&quot; &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.&#039;s march on DC</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> &#8220;I don&#8217;t know how to explain it, other than to just say it.  Reading that is painful.  It hurts.  I was working in the Clinton White House the summer that DOMA was being debated.  It&#8217;s hard &#8212; but good &#8212; to see how so much has changed that this could go from being an unfortunate reality to a seeming anomaly of discrimination.&#8221; </i></p>
<p>Well you should explain it. How does a law reacting to a change in a foundational social institution &#8220;hurt&#8221; you?</p>
<p>A simple definition that has stood and is commonly understood &#8220;hurts&#8221; you?</p>
<p>And you keep throwing around &#8220;discrimination&#8221; as if you’re not a lawyer. As if the law discriminating in necessarily a bad thing.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don&#8217;t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.&#8221; </p></blockquote>
<p>Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.&#8217;s march on DC</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Congratulations, But . . . &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/03/03/doma-challenged/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Congratulations, But . . . &#171; Law Dork, 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.wordpress.com/?p=306#comment-52</guid>
		<description>[...] OPM, you might recall, is the lead named defendant in the GLAD lawsuit, filed today and covered here, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management et [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] OPM, you might recall, is the lead named defendant in the GLAD lawsuit, filed today and covered here, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management et [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
