<?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: California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Proposition 8 But Denies Stay in Gay Marriage Ban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/</link>
	<description>Flap&#039;s Comments on Politics, the Dental World and Much More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: California Proposition 8 Ruling by California Supreme Court Coming Next Tuesday &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</title>
		<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-149049</link>
		<dc:creator>California Proposition 8 Ruling by California Supreme Court Coming Next Tuesday &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 18:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-149049</guid>
		<description>[...] to the California Constitution) constitutional.Flap&#8217;s Opinion: Flap can count as well.&#160; Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to the California Constitution) constitutional.Flap&#8217;s Opinion: Flap can count as well.&nbsp; Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph H Garrett</title>
		<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-140488</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph H Garrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-140488</guid>
		<description>I hope you aren&#039;t antagonistic towards Bible thumpers.  The book&#039;s teachings are, after all, the foundation of most of western man&#039;s law making.

In connection please see Genesis 19:5-6, Leviticus 18:22 &amp; 20:13, Judges 19:23-26, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, &amp; Jude 7.  These are the only biblical passages that deal with homosexuality specifically and, I submit, should not be ignored.  Some people want the court to intepret Scriptural generalities, such as &quot;God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son&quot; (John 3:16) as justification to ignore what His words says specifically about nearly anything that they want inserted in their agendas de jour.  These are attempted usurpations designed to establish a lawful basis for behavior that&#039;s part and parcel of the hedonism that characterized the 2,200 years with which these passages dealt. Scriptural generalities should not be construed as contradictions of Scriptural specifics.  E.G. That &quot;God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son&quot; (John 3:16) does not contradict what He&#039;s said about the subject of illicit sexual behavior - of the homosexual variety or otherwise.  The courts need to provide us with legal authority that&#039;s based on a moral order, nothing less, and since the majority of Californians want that view reflected in the state&#039;s constitution I submit that they should not have the court stand in their way.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope you aren&#8217;t antagonistic towards Bible thumpers.  The book&#8217;s teachings are, after all, the foundation of most of western man&#8217;s law making.</p>
<p>In connection please see Genesis 19:5-6, Leviticus 18:22 &amp; 20:13, Judges 19:23-26, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, &amp; Jude 7.  These are the only biblical passages that deal with homosexuality specifically and, I submit, should not be ignored.  Some people want the court to intepret Scriptural generalities, such as &#8220;God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son&#8221; (John 3:16) as justification to ignore what His words says specifically about nearly anything that they want inserted in their agendas de jour.  These are attempted usurpations designed to establish a lawful basis for behavior that&#8217;s part and parcel of the hedonism that characterized the 2,200 years with which these passages dealt. Scriptural generalities should not be construed as contradictions of Scriptural specifics.  E.G. That &#8220;God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son&#8221; (John 3:16) does not contradict what He&#8217;s said about the subject of illicit sexual behavior &#8211; of the homosexual variety or otherwise.  The courts need to provide us with legal authority that&#8217;s based on a moral order, nothing less, and since the majority of Californians want that view reflected in the state&#8217;s constitution I submit that they should not have the court stand in their way.</p>
<p>Thank you for your attention to this matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Brown, Kenneth Star and California Proposition 8 &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</title>
		<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-140009</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Brown, Kenneth Star and California Proposition 8 &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:46:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-140009</guid>
		<description>[...] tuned as reply briefs are filed with the court by January [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] tuned as reply briefs are filed with the court by January [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard&#8217;s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8? &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</title>
		<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-138552</link>
		<dc:creator>Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard&#8217;s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8? &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:56:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-138552</guid>
		<description>[...] Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan In yesterday&#8217;s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California&#8217;s Proposition 8 that restored the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan In yesterday&#8217;s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California&#8217;s Proposition 8 that restored the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal? &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</title>
		<link>http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-138549</link>
		<dc:creator>Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal? &#124; FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flapsblog.com/2008/11/19/california-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-proposition-8-but-denies-stay-in-gay-marriage-ban/#comment-138549</guid>
		<description>[...] the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

