<?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: Why Marriage?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2008/11/17/why-marriage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2008/11/17/why-marriage/</link>
	<description>helen boyd&#039;s journal of gender &#38; trans issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:17:33 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: helenboyd</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2008/11/17/why-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-55806</link>
		<dc:creator>helenboyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=7306#comment-55806</guid>
		<description>that was 18 years later! obviously there&#039;s no time limit, but the passage of time itself could make an argument that things had changed, or thinking about the matter had. rewriting a supreme court ruling five months after it ruled seems a little presumptuous. 

or is that common too? 

(there&#039;s a reason i pointed out this isn&#039;t my field, by any stretch)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that was 18 years later! obviously there&#8217;s no time limit, but the passage of time itself could make an argument that things had changed, or thinking about the matter had. rewriting a supreme court ruling five months after it ruled seems a little presumptuous. </p>
<p>or is that common too? </p>
<p>(there&#8217;s a reason i pointed out this isn&#8217;t my field, by any stretch)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: caprice</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2008/11/17/why-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-55805</link>
		<dc:creator>caprice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=7306#comment-55805</guid>
		<description>Helen, it is always possible to overrule the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. It&#039;s the Court&#039;s job to interpret it, but if it changes its a whole new ballgame. That&#039;s exactly what happened with the income tax. In 1913 the 16th amendment was passed, overruling an 1895 Supreme Court decision.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Helen, it is always possible to overrule the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. It&#8217;s the Court&#8217;s job to interpret it, but if it changes its a whole new ballgame. That&#8217;s exactly what happened with the income tax. In 1913 the 16th amendment was passed, overruling an 1895 Supreme Court decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

