<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Price The &#8220;M&#8221; Word?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/</link>
	<description>The WGMD 92.7 FM Delmarva Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jordo</title>
		<link>http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-292</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-292</guid>
		<description>Nancy,
By transparency I mean letting us know what you really think.  I was just asking questions because you weren't being very precisice with the words you choose.  For example, usually when someone says something about a state that recognizes gay marriage, they literally mean one of the United States of America, and they literally mean gay marriage, not civil unions.  I just wanted you to clarify.  Thanks for doing that.

Devastation,
I tend to agree with you.  I am not a lawyer, but I think that much of the outside influences that Nancy if worried about could be cleared up with separate contracts.  For example, anyone should be allowed to leave their inheritance to anyone they wish.  If that cannot be secured with a legally binding document, the law should be changed to allow that.  But that is not a gay issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nancy,<br />
By transparency I mean letting us know what you really think.  I was just asking questions because you weren&#8217;t being very precisice with the words you choose.  For example, usually when someone says something about a state that recognizes gay marriage, they literally mean one of the United States of America, and they literally mean gay marriage, not civil unions.  I just wanted you to clarify.  Thanks for doing that.</p>
<p>Devastation,<br />
I tend to agree with you.  I am not a lawyer, but I think that much of the outside influences that Nancy if worried about could be cleared up with separate contracts.  For example, anyone should be allowed to leave their inheritance to anyone they wish.  If that cannot be secured with a legally binding document, the law should be changed to allow that.  But that is not a gay issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devastation</title>
		<link>http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-288</link>
		<dc:creator>Devastation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-288</guid>
		<description>"Among other influences which I do consider â€œoutsideâ€ since they are opposed to what we, ourselves, have every right to have and for which there appears no logical reason for us not to have."

Where is the sense of personal responsibility in this country? People who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle have NO RIGHT to have that choice validated by being given special laws. Why do the rules have to be changed simply because the players think they have a "right" to it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Among other influences which I do consider â€œoutsideâ€ since they are opposed to what we, ourselves, have every right to have and for which there appears no logical reason for us not to have.&#8221;</p>
<p>Where is the sense of personal responsibility in this country? People who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle have NO RIGHT to have that choice validated by being given special laws. Why do the rules have to be changed simply because the players think they have a &#8220;right&#8221; to it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Cleveland</title>
		<link>http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-280</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Cleveland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-280</guid>
		<description>Marriage in MA, legal civil union/domestic partnership in VT and CA.  Like I said, marriage or civil union, what's the difference other than a word?  While they are not States, Canada permits same-sex marriage as does Germany and Belgium while the UK has civil partnerships.  Outside influences...hospitals that won't recognize a partner for who he/she is (effectively, not next of kin), mortgage companies (or States) which will not allow same-sex couples to have a mortgage in both names, IRS which certainly does not allow any tax deductions for a same-sex couple despite the fact that they share the same financial "burdens" as married hetero-couples (that applies to Federal and State), families who deny and strip a partner of any inheritance because they CAN, because the law allows them to.  Among other influences which I do consider "outside" since they are opposed to what we, ourselves, have every right to have and for which there appears no logical reason for us not to have.

Transparency, Jordo??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marriage in MA, legal civil union/domestic partnership in VT and CA.  Like I said, marriage or civil union, what&#8217;s the difference other than a word?  While they are not States, Canada permits same-sex marriage as does Germany and Belgium while the UK has civil partnerships.  Outside influences&#8230;hospitals that won&#8217;t recognize a partner for who he/she is (effectively, not next of kin), mortgage companies (or States) which will not allow same-sex couples to have a mortgage in both names, IRS which certainly does not allow any tax deductions for a same-sex couple despite the fact that they share the same financial &#8220;burdens&#8221; as married hetero-couples (that applies to Federal and State), families who deny and strip a partner of any inheritance because they CAN, because the law allows them to.  Among other influences which I do consider &#8220;outside&#8221; since they are opposed to what we, ourselves, have every right to have and for which there appears no logical reason for us not to have.</p>
<p>Transparency, Jordo??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordo</title>
		<link>http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-279</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wgmd.com/blog/2006/12/15/what-price-the-m-word/#comment-279</guid>
		<description>"Already, even though gay marriage is only recognized in a very few states..."

Where is it recognized besides Massachusetts?

"What does concern us is that outside influences willâ€¦and doâ€¦affect us where it wonâ€™t a legally joined couple and that IS a problemâ€¦yet nothing a civil union wouldnâ€™t alleviate or that â€œonly marriageâ€ could make right."

What kind of outside influences are you talking about here?

I like your transparency.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Already, even though gay marriage is only recognized in a very few states&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Where is it recognized besides Massachusetts?</p>
<p>&#8220;What does concern us is that outside influences willâ€¦and doâ€¦affect us where it wonâ€™t a legally joined couple and that IS a problemâ€¦yet nothing a civil union wouldnâ€™t alleviate or that â€œonly marriageâ€ could make right.&#8221;</p>
<p>What kind of outside influences are you talking about here?</p>
<p>I like your transparency.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
