<?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: Maine Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nomblog.com/540/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nomblog.com/540/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer H.</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9113</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9113</guid>
		<description>Neutering marriage is just one more nail in the coffin for societal decline.  Saying it can't be worse than rampant divorce is seriously exactly what people have been saying.  Not only is SSM not good for society, it actually hurts society.  There's nothing equal about neutering the future of marriage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neutering marriage is just one more nail in the coffin for societal decline.  Saying it can't be worse than rampant divorce is seriously exactly what people have been saying.  Not only is SSM not good for society, it actually hurts society.  There's nothing equal about neutering the future of marriage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9112</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9112</guid>
		<description>Kevin, if you're going to weigh court decisions, only a few activist courts have discovered the "right to marry anyone you choose regardless of the consequences to family, children and society...etc" newly found right that never before existed.  You're going to have to do better than that.  It's a contested issue to be certain but by sheer numbers, many more courts have found in favor of the marriage/child relationship than not.  Children have the right to a mom and dad.  Any rights you have to live the way you choose can't supersede the right of children to be raised by their parents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin, if you're going to weigh court decisions, only a few activist courts have discovered the "right to marry anyone you choose regardless of the consequences to family, children and society...etc" newly found right that never before existed.  You're going to have to do better than that.  It's a contested issue to be certain but by sheer numbers, many more courts have found in favor of the marriage/child relationship than not.  Children have the right to a mom and dad.  Any rights you have to live the way you choose can't supersede the right of children to be raised by their parents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9106</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9106</guid>
		<description>Samantha,

Any limitations on marriage have to be legally justified. That's why discriminatory marriage statutes are being found unconstitutional.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Samantha,</p>
<p>Any limitations on marriage have to be legally justified. That's why discriminatory marriage statutes are being found unconstitutional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samantha</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9067</link>
		<dc:creator>Samantha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9067</guid>
		<description>Kevin, Loving v. Virginia is not ubiquitous in interpretation.  The right to marry indiscriminately is something you have spun from thin air.  

There are plenty of courts who have stated that there are justifications for placing limitations on the institution of marriage.  In previous conversations in these threads I see that you have tried to answer to the social concerns and failed.  You're being disingenuous if you cannot now recall those very poignant points.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin, Loving v. Virginia is not ubiquitous in interpretation.  The right to marry indiscriminately is something you have spun from thin air.  </p>
<p>There are plenty of courts who have stated that there are justifications for placing limitations on the institution of marriage.  In previous conversations in these threads I see that you have tried to answer to the social concerns and failed.  You're being disingenuous if you cannot now recall those very poignant points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9064</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9064</guid>
		<description>Amy,

Yes there is a right to marry. The US Supreme has already stated so, in its 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia. 

And even if there weren’t a right to marry, the state can’t offer rights and privileges to some citizens, and not others, without justification. There’s no justification that appears to be impressing courts, who decide what’s legal and what’s unconstitutional.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amy,</p>
<p>Yes there is a right to marry. The US Supreme has already stated so, in its 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia. </p>
<p>And even if there weren’t a right to marry, the state can’t offer rights and privileges to some citizens, and not others, without justification. There’s no justification that appears to be impressing courts, who decide what’s legal and what’s unconstitutional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9054</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:47:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9054</guid>
		<description>there is no right to marry.  If there were, you would not be able to restrict anyone from marrying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>there is no right to marry.  If there were, you would not be able to restrict anyone from marrying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9048</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9048</guid>
		<description>Homosexuals aren't asking for special rights, just equal rights. Homosexuals are asking for the right to marry, which heterosexuals already have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Homosexuals aren't asking for special rights, just equal rights. Homosexuals are asking for the right to marry, which heterosexuals already have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melbourne</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9037</link>
		<dc:creator>Melbourne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9037</guid>
		<description>Great article. Thank you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article. Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9031</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9031</guid>
		<description>Agreed George, Whoever did that shows intolerance. Maybe we need a hate crimes bill for traditional marriage proponents or something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed George, Whoever did that shows intolerance. Maybe we need a hate crimes bill for traditional marriage proponents or something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Lee</title>
		<link>http://nomblog.com/540/comment-page-1/#comment-9023</link>
		<dc:creator>George Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=540#comment-9023</guid>
		<description>I remember they tried that swastika stuff in California too.  They painted swastikas on houses of people who supported proposition 8 and the natural family.  It's a sign of their intolerance for other's beliefs.  Homosexuality is not a good basis for special rights above the rights of others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember they tried that swastika stuff in California too.  They painted swastikas on houses of people who supported proposition 8 and the natural family.  It's a sign of their intolerance for other's beliefs.  Homosexuality is not a good basis for special rights above the rights of others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
