<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Civil Rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/civil-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>EEOC Says TSA Violated Rastafarian&#8217;s Rights in Haircut Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/11/18/eeoc-says-tsa-violated-rastafarians-rights-in-haircut-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/11/18/eeoc-says-tsa-violated-rastafarians-rights-in-haircut-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dreadlocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[haircut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rastafarian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TSA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that Rastafarian baggage screener Josue Brissot was discriminated against when the Transportation Security Ageny (TSA) threatened to fire him in 2005 if he didn&#8217;t cut his dreadlocks. Bissot wears his hair long for religious reasons. He claims that he was assured his dreadlocks weren&#8217;t a problem when [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that Rastafarian baggage screener Josue Brissot was discriminated against when the Transportation Security Ageny (TSA) threatened to fire him in 2005 if he didn&#8217;t cut his dreadlocks. Bissot wears his hair long for religious reasons. He claims that he was assured his dreadlocks weren&#8217;t a problem when he was hired by the Transporation Security Administration in 2002.<span id="more-950"></span></p>
<p>Brissot was represented in the case by the Boston office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The ACLU says Brissot’s treatment violated federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on religion. An interim ruling was issued by the administrative law judge in the case and is now scheduled for a hearing to determine compensation in February.</p>
<p>Sources: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/17/judge_tsa_violated_rights_of_rastafarian/">http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/17/judge_tsa_violated_rights_of_rastafarian/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9114001">http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9114001</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/11/18/eeoc-says-tsa-violated-rastafarians-rights-in-haircut-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Government to Provide More Security at Abortion Clinics</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/02/federal-government-to-provide-more-security-at-abortion-clinics/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/02/federal-government-to-provide-more-security-at-abortion-clinics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Tiller]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After an abortion doctor was killed, the Department of Justice announced it will be increasing security measures to protect the safety of abortion seekers and providers. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that he will enlist the aid of the U.S. Marshal Service to provide increased protection for at-risk people and facilities.
The action comes after [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After an abortion doctor was killed, the Department of Justice announced it will be increasing security measures to protect the safety of abortion seekers and providers. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that he will enlist the aid of the U.S. Marshal Service to provide increased protection for at-risk people and facilities.</p>
<p>The action comes after the recent murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Dr. Tiller&#8217;s clinic was bombed in 1985 and he was shot twice in 1993. The Marshals Service last provided protection to Dr. Tiller in 2001.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/06/doj-increases-federal-protection-at.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/06/doj-increases-federal-protection-at.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/06/02/federal-government-to-provide-more-security-at-abortion-clinics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Allows Censorship of Expletives on TV</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/29/supreme-court-allows-censorship-of-expletives-on-tv/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/29/supreme-court-allows-censorship-of-expletives-on-tv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fleeting expletives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=839</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commissison (FCC) may punish broadcast networks for even a single curse word uttered on live television. In its 5-4 decision, the Court said it did not find the FCC&#8217;s policy on so-called fleeting expletives either &#8220;arbitrary or capricious.&#8221;
The case was decided on procedural issues. The broadcasters [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commissison (FCC) may punish broadcast networks for even a single curse word uttered on live television. In its 5-4 decision, the Court said it did not find the FCC&#8217;s policy on so-called fleeting expletives either &#8220;arbitrary or capricious.&#8221;</p>
<p>The case was decided on procedural issues. The broadcasters had argued that the FCC failed to give enough notice of or properly explain the reasons for penalizing fleeting expletives after declining to issue penalties for them in decades past.  They claimed the FCC&#8217;s policy is unfair, since punishments have been imposed in some cases and not others. The broader constitutional question of the FCC&#8217;s right to police the airwaves was sent back to a federal appeals court for another review.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Supreme-Court-OKs-regulation-of-language-on-TV">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Supreme-Court-OKs-regulation-of-language-on-TV</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/29/supreme-court-allows-censorship-of-expletives-on-tv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Restricts Warrantless Searches of Vehicles</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/22/supreme-court-restricts-warrantless-searches-of-vehicles/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/22/supreme-court-restricts-warrantless-searches-of-vehicles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Belton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warrantless search]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police may not conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle after an arrest unless the suspect poses a safety threat to the officer, the suspect is able to reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence,  or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police may not conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle after an arrest unless the suspect poses a safety threat to the officer, the suspect is able to reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence,  or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found. The court&#8217;s 5-4 decision will mean a change in police practices in use since the leading case, New York v. Belton, was decided in 1981.</p>
<p> In the dissenting opinion, Justice Alito criticized the majority opinion for creating an unclear standard that the dissent claimed will be confusing for law enforcement officers to follow and endanger their safety. The majority said the earlier Belton case was misinterpreted to mean that officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a lawful arrest of a suspect. The dissent accused the majority of using the misinterpretation explanation as an excuse to change a law it disagreed with.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Supreme-Court-limits-warrantless-vehicle-searches">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Supreme-Court-limits-warrantless-vehicle-searches</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/22/supreme-court-restricts-warrantless-searches-of-vehicles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abortion Issue Moves to License Plates</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/15/abortion-issue-moves-to-license-plates/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/15/abortion-issue-moves-to-license-plates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[choose life license plate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least 18 states have specialized license plates that say &#8216;Choose Life.&#8221; Other states have debated the issue of specialty plates in the legislature, arguing that certain controversies shouldn&#8217;t be discussed on license plates and there is dispute over whether it constitutes government or private speech. Many types of plates supporting military, sports, and other [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least 18 states have specialized license plates that say &#8216;Choose Life.&#8221; Other states have debated the issue of specialty plates in the legislature, arguing that certain controversies shouldn&#8217;t be discussed on license plates and there is dispute over whether it constitutes government or private speech. Many types of plates supporting military, sports, and other groups are issued.</p>
<p>New Jersey is currently arguing a case involving the issuance of anti-abortion specialty plates. The Assistant Attorney General of New Jersey argued the state isn&#8217;t trying to avoid controversy, but the law limits to designs to logos and group names, and does not allow slogans.</p>
<p> Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Abortion-debate-moves-to-special-license-plates">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Abortion-debate-moves-to-special-license-plates</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/15/abortion-issue-moves-to-license-plates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIA Tactics Considered Torture By Red Cross</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/17/cia-torture-tactics-considered-torture-by-red-cross/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/17/cia-torture-tactics-considered-torture-by-red-cross/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Committee of the Red Cross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waterboarding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) deemd CIA tactics used against terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, prolonged nudity, and cold water immersion, as constituting torture. The information was contained in a confidential 2007 report originally intended for CIA general counsel John Rizzo, but is contained in an article published in the New York Review of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Verdana">The International Committee of the Red Cross </span><span style="font-family: Verdana">(ICRC) deemd CIA tactics used against terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, prolonged nudity, and cold water immersion, as constituting torture. The information was contained in a confidential 2007 report originally intended for CIA general counsel John Rizzo, but is contained in an article </span><span style="font-family: Verdana">published in the <span style="font-style: italic">New York Review of Books</span> earlier this month. The ICRC conclusions were made after</span><span style="font-family: Verdana"> interviews with fourteen so-called &#8220;high-valued&#8221; detainees. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana">The CIA recently admitted to the destruction of 92 tapes </span><span style="font-family: Verdana">of interrogations of the &#8220;high-value&#8221; detainees, 12 of which</span><span style="font-family: Verdana"> included evidence of &#8220;Enhanced Interrogation Techniques&#8221; (EIT). President Barack Obama in January issued an executive order explicitly banning the use of waterboarding and other techniques that violate the Geneva Convention safeguards for prisoners of war.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana">Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/red-cross-deemed-cia-interrogation.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/red-cross-deemed-cia-interrogation.php</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/17/cia-torture-tactics-considered-torture-by-red-cross/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rules California Must Release Prisoners</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california department of corrections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison overcrowding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has tentatively ruled that California must release by between 36,200 and 57,000 inmates.  The three federal judges said a final population figure would be announced later and more hearings may be held before a final decision is made. The court found that that inmates were deprived of constitutional rights to adequate mental and physical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has tentatively ruled that California must release by between 36,200 and 57,000 inmates.  The three federal judges said a final population figure would be announced later and more hearings may be held before a final decision is made. The court found that that inmates were deprived of constitutional rights to adequate mental and physical health care, and that the unconstitutional conditions are due to overcrowding. </p>
<p>The order comes as California is dealing with a $42 billion budget deficit that is forcing the state to furlough its employees two days each month.  <span style="font-family: Verdana">Opponents of the release order claim that the state does not have the funds for the support programs associated with the release of such a large number of inmates, but the court claimed that reducing the number of inmates could save the state $900 million annually in prison costs. </span>The state has said it will appeal any final prisoner release order to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/02/federal-judges-order-california-to.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/02/federal-judges-order-california-to.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Supreme Court Hears Witness Intimidation Case</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racketeering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bornstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confrontation clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witness intimidation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein told the state&#8217;s highest court that there are many instances of witnesses unwilling to testify in domestic violence, gang violence, and organized crime due to being threatened and intimidated. Witness intimidation is being blamed as the biggest obstacle to successful prosecution in such cases.
The state is urging the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein told the state&#8217;s highest court that there are many instances of witnesses unwilling to testify in domestic violence, gang violence, and organized crime due to being threatened and intimidated. Witness intimidation is being blamed as the biggest obstacle to successful prosecution in such cases.</p>
<p>The state is urging the court to allow statements of out-of-court witnesses who have been victims of intimidation to be used at trial without presenting the witnesses themselves. Defense lawyers claim that allowing the statements to be used without presenting the witness would violate the defendants&#8217; constitutional right to confront accusers.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/NJ-high-court-hearing-case-on-witness-intimidation">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/NJ-high-court-hearing-case-on-witness-intimidation</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Black Nominee to U.S. Justice Department Named</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eric Holder is the first African-American nominee for attorney general. His resume includes being the first black U.S. attorney, the Justice Department&#8217;s first black deputy attorney general, and the acting attorney general for 14 days at the end of the Clinton administration. The former attorney general,   Alberto Gonzales, resigned amid probes into the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric Holder is the first African-American nominee for attorney general. His resume includes being the first black U.S. attorney, the Justice Department&#8217;s first black deputy attorney general, and the acting attorney general for 14 days at the end of the Clinton administration. The former attorney general,   Alberto Gonzales, resigned amid probes into the department&#8217;s firing of nine U.S. attorneys.</p>
<p>Among the policy issues Holder will need to address are how to handle the remaining foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and whether to issue new legal guidelines for interrogating and wiretapping such suspects. Holder has characterized the secret monitoring of communications of U.S. citizens and the use of questionable interrogation methods as &#8220;excessive and unlawful.&#8221; </p>
<p>Critics of Holder point to his support for presidential pardons for convicted tax evader Marc Rich and for terrorist Susan Rosenberg, who was convicted on explosives and weapons charges. Holder also refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate President Clinton&#8217;s fundraising activities. Holder has since expressed regrets about his decision to recommend Rich&#8217;s pardon.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&amp;orgId=607&amp;docId=l:l:892770710&amp;topicId=12722&amp;source=undefined&amp;start=2&amp;topics=single">http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&amp;orgId=607&amp;docId=l:l:892770710&amp;topicId=12722&amp;source=undefined&amp;start=2&amp;topics=single</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Popular Dating Site to Offer Same-Sex Matches</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/11/19/popular-dating-site-to-offer-same-sex-matches/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/11/19/popular-dating-site-to-offer-same-sex-matches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EHarmony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same-sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EHarmony settled a discrimination lawsuit today by agreeing to offer a new website which caters to gay and lesbian individuals. It will also offer the service for free to the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch.
The suit was filed in 2005 by New Jersey resident Eric McKinley.
As part of a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EHarmony settled a discrimination lawsuit today by agreeing to offer a new website which caters to gay and lesbian individuals. It will also offer the service for free to the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch.</p>
<p>The suit was filed in 2005 by New Jersey resident Eric McKinley.</p>
<p>As part of a settlement of McKinley&#8217;s claim, EHarmony has also agreed to pay the New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will also pay McKinley $5,000.</p>
<p>The new website will be called Compatible Partners and will launch on March 31, 2009.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqWaIhebV73ULjPWUfwRcEX-7oPgD94I61M00">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqWaIhebV73ULjPWUfwRcEX-7oPgD94I61M00</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/11/19/popular-dating-site-to-offer-same-sex-matches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
