<?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: NZ’s marriage equality bill approved by MPs &#8211; full coverage and reaction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/nzs-marriage-equality-bill-a-longblog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/nzs-marriage-equality-bill-a-longblog/</link>
	<description>Political, Cultural and Literary life of New Zealand</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chasbe</title>
		<link>http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/nzs-marriage-equality-bill-a-longblog/comment-page-1/#comment-1300</link>
		<dc:creator>Chasbe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.listener.co.nz/?p=61700#comment-1300</guid>
		<description>Many people with a religious bent are of the view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and the prosed changes to the Marriages Act are an abomination. On principal I agree with the Bill and its intent. However I would suggest that the Act relating to Civil Unions be the Act being amended to ensure that all the rights of the &quot;Marriage&quot;  apply to Civil Unions, followed by revoking the Marriages Act. This would then get the State out of  the field of marriages. Marriage and the rites of marriage would be then again the role of the belief system of those wanting to be married under the rigours of that particular belief system. However these marriages would not have any statutory backing, interference or recognition by the State, except of course where the rites and system are contrary to good law.&lt;span class=&quot;safe-comments-report-link&quot;&gt;Wrong usage of print_flagging_link().&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people with a religious bent are of the view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and the prosed changes to the Marriages Act are an abomination. On principal I agree with the Bill and its intent. However I would suggest that the Act relating to Civil Unions be the Act being amended to ensure that all the rights of the &#8220;Marriage&#8221;  apply to Civil Unions, followed by revoking the Marriages Act. This would then get the State out of  the field of marriages. Marriage and the rites of marriage would be then again the role of the belief system of those wanting to be married under the rigours of that particular belief system. However these marriages would not have any statutory backing, interference or recognition by the State, except of course where the rites and system are contrary to good law.<span class="safe-comments-report-link">Wrong usage of print_flagging_link().</span></p>
<span class="safe-comments-report-link">Wrong usage of print_flagging_link().</span>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
