<?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: Gingrich, like Romney, promises to exclude gay couples from marriage if president</title>
	<atom:link href="http://washingtonindependent.com/116694/gingrich-like-romney-promises-to-exclude-gay-couples-from-marriage-if-president/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/116694/gingrich-like-romney-promises-to-exclude-gay-couples-from-marriage-if-president</link>
	<description>National News in Context</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 11:16:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Anziulewicz</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/116694/gingrich-like-romney-promises-to-exclude-gay-couples-from-marriage-if-president/comment-page-1#comment-306936</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Anziulewicz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=116694#comment-306936</guid>
		<description>Mitt Romney now says that while he supports an amendment to the Constitution banning Gay couples from marrying, Gay couples who are already legally married (in Iowa or New York, for example) before ratification would be &quot;grandfathered in&quot; and allowed to remain married.

Hmmm. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was adopted in 1865. Imagine if the amendment had been written in such a way that slavery would no longer be permitted after ratification, but slaveowners prior to that point would be &quot;grandfathered in&quot; and allowed to keep their slaves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mitt Romney now says that while he supports an amendment to the Constitution banning Gay couples from marrying, Gay couples who are already legally married (in Iowa or New York, for example) before ratification would be &#8220;grandfathered in&#8221; and allowed to remain married.</p>
<p>Hmmm. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was adopted in 1865. Imagine if the amendment had been written in such a way that slavery would no longer be permitted after ratification, but slaveowners prior to that point would be &#8220;grandfathered in&#8221; and allowed to keep their slaves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RealCon</title>
		<link>http://washingtonindependent.com/116694/gingrich-like-romney-promises-to-exclude-gay-couples-from-marriage-if-president/comment-page-1#comment-306933</link>
		<dc:creator>RealCon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=116694#comment-306933</guid>
		<description>Ron Paul is RIGHT!
The government does not belong in the marriage business.
It is nowhere in the constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron Paul is RIGHT!<br />
The government does not belong in the marriage business.<br />
It is nowhere in the constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
