<?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: Full Seventh Circuit reverses previous findings and finds Indiana SORA not discriminatory on basis of residence	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.narsol.org/2021/08/full-seventh-circuit-reverses-previous-findings-and-finds-indiana-sora-not-discriminatory-on-basis-of-residence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/08/full-seventh-circuit-reverses-previous-findings-and-finds-indiana-sora-not-discriminatory-on-basis-of-residence/</link>
	<description>National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:40:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/08/full-seventh-circuit-reverses-previous-findings-and-finds-indiana-sora-not-discriminatory-on-basis-of-residence/#comment-41089</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 18:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=85136#comment-41089</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This piece makes no mention the full panel sent the equal protection case(s) back to the circuit court for review. All of these plaintiffs may not have signed the standardized waiver of civil rights in their individual cases.  I suspect that new review will emphasise that point. States are also compelled to recognize marriage decrees from other states, same deal here with respect to the standardized waiver freely and intelligently entered into.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This piece makes no mention the full panel sent the equal protection case(s) back to the circuit court for review. All of these plaintiffs may not have signed the standardized waiver of civil rights in their individual cases.  I suspect that new review will emphasise that point. States are also compelled to recognize marriage decrees from other states, same deal here with respect to the standardized waiver freely and intelligently entered into.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
