<?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/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should Liberals Champion States&#8217; Rights?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/should-liberals-champion-states-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/should-liberals-champion-states-rights/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 16:02:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Anziulewicz</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/should-liberals-champion-states-rights/#comment-2330</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Anziulewicz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3550#comment-2330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it&#039;s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed&#039;s point of view, it wouldn&#039;t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically &quot;UN-married&quot; once they decide to move somewhere else.
 

 
As it is right now, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked. And the federal government will bestow 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities on that couple (according to the Government Accounting Office). But Gay couples are held to a different standard. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is transparently unconstitutional. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it&#039;s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed&#039;s point of view, it wouldn&#039;t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically &quot;UN-married&quot; once they decide to move somewhere else.</p>
<p>As it is right now, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked. And the federal government will bestow 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities on that couple (according to the Government Accounting Office). But Gay couples are held to a different standard. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is transparently unconstitutional. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Race to the Top: Which states made the list of finalists? &#8211; Christian Science Monitor : World online news</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/should-liberals-champion-states-rights/#comment-2329</link>
		<dc:creator>Race to the Top: Which states made the list of finalists? &#8211; Christian Science Monitor : World online news</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3550#comment-2329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Should Liberals Champion States&#039; Rights? &#124; Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...] ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Should Liberals Champion States&#039; Rights? | Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...] </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
