<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">

    <channel>


	<title>The Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission | California ruling lousy legal logic | Comments</title>
    <link>http://erlc.com/</link>
    <description>This feed provides all comments on &quot;California ruling lousy legal logic.&quot;</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <webMaster>web&#45;master@erlc.com</webMaster>
    <copyright>&#x2117; &amp; &#xA9; 2008 ERLC</copyright> 


		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 1</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/california&#45;ruling&#45;lousy&#45;legal&#45;logic#comment1</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/california&#45;ruling&#45;lousy&#45;legal&#45;logic#comment1</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>Kelly Boggs says&#8230;
</p>
<p>
&#8220;If liberals and homosexual activists are correct and marriage is nothing more than a social construct that must be adapted to society as culture becomes more depraved&#8221;....
</p>
<p>
but she misses the crux of the issues here.&nbsp; The court saw that the right to marry a person of our choosing and to create a home to our accord is a fundamental right of privacy and civil rights.&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
Gay people are not depraved individuals, as might be Ms. Boggs opinion, and she is welcome to it; however, her right to her opinion should not constrict my personal liberty.&nbsp; She can believe whatever she wishes but that does not give her, nor anyone else, the right to IMPOSE upon gay people her restrictive opinions.
</p>
<p>
I thought the ERLC would support personal liberty and freedom.
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:28:14 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:56:36 CST</pubDate>
		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 2</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/california&#45;ruling&#45;lousy&#45;legal&#45;logic#comment2</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/california&#45;ruling&#45;lousy&#45;legal&#45;logic#comment2</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>The court never said this. The court did very little to explain what it meant was being denied to same sex couples. It A. Struck down proposition 22 and B. Ordered? That no marriage license in California recognize men and women as husband and wives. Married people are &#8220;Party A&#8221; or &#8220;Party B.&#8221; The court basically banned marriage in California (New anniversary cards are now being legislated).
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:56:36 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>