<?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: NOM INTERVIEWS: RNC Chairman Candidate Michael Steel on Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nomblog.com/2819/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819</link>
	<description>The official blog of the National Organization for Marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 09:18:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ConservativeNY</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-27055</link>
		<dc:creator>ConservativeNY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-27055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires the government to force a redefinition of marriage on all 50 states whether it be for homosexuality, polygamy, inscest, or polymory.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires the government to force a redefinition of marriage on all 50 states whether it be for homosexuality, polygamy, inscest, or polymory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Allard-Lawson</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-27028</link>
		<dc:creator>John Allard-Lawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-27028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am not sure that pushing for a federal marriage amendment is the best strategy for NOM to embrace right now. With Prop. 8 (and DOMA) headed to the Supreme Court, does it send a message that currently there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent &quot;Gay Marriage&quot; from being legal?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not sure that pushing for a federal marriage amendment is the best strategy for NOM to embrace right now. With Prop. 8 (and DOMA) headed to the Supreme Court, does it send a message that currently there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent "Gay Marriage" from being legal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26995</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 06:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26995</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patrick wrote: &quot;The legal community is on the side of marriage equality and since this is primarily a legal, not religious, issue, that bodes well.&quot;

A fatally flawed analysis, Patrick. Every time that there has been a vote on homosexual marriage it has failed to pass. That means that the majority of the people oppose homosexual marriage and that means that your agenda is toast, LOL!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrick wrote: "The legal community is on the side of marriage equality and since this is primarily a legal, not religious, issue, that bodes well."</p>
<p>A fatally flawed analysis, Patrick. Every time that there has been a vote on homosexual marriage it has failed to pass. That means that the majority of the people oppose homosexual marriage and that means that your agenda is toast, LOL!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ConservativeNY</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26973</link>
		<dc:creator>ConservativeNY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 01:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Get your history straight, John W.  It was democrats that supported slavery and later segregation.  All of the southern states were solidly democrat untill the late 1960s.  And it was republican votes that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.

And what does racial segregation have to do with gender integration, anyway?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get your history straight, John W.  It was democrats that supported slavery and later segregation.  All of the southern states were solidly democrat untill the late 1960s.  And it was republican votes that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.</p>
<p>And what does racial segregation have to do with gender integration, anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26964</link>
		<dc:creator>John W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let&#039;s all remember how republicans tried to stop blacks from marrying whites....it&#039;s the same thing now....they&#039;ll be on the wrong side of history again and will shout &quot;Lincoln was republican&quot;....yup...they have to dig that far back.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let's all remember how republicans tried to stop blacks from marrying whites....it's the same thing now....they'll be on the wrong side of history again and will shout "Lincoln was republican"....yup...they have to dig that far back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26785</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The legal community is on the side of marriage equality and since this is primarily a legal, not religious, issue, that bodes well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The legal community is on the side of marriage equality and since this is primarily a legal, not religious, issue, that bodes well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26729</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Getting Prop 8 on the ballot was &quot;impossible&quot;. Prop 8 passing was &quot;impossible&quot;. Defeating legislated homosexual marriage in Maine was &quot;impossible&quot;. Removing judges from the Iowa Supreme Court was &quot;impossible&quot;. In the 48 years that Iowa voters had the right to a judicial retention vote, not a single judge had been removed from the bench until 2010.

This is, whether you believe it or not, where God, faith and religion come in. 

&quot;With men it is impossible; but to God all things are possible.&quot; - Matthew 19:26

I know that you don&#039;t understand what you are dealing with here, PRS. You think that God, religion and faith are a bunch of bunk. But how, then, do you explain all of the &quot;impossible&quot; things which we have accomplished?

When Maggie set out for California to work on Prop 8, she needed $5 million that she did NOT have. It came! 

Watch over time, PRS. Observe. See what happens and try to figure out how it came about when it was &quot;impossible&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Getting Prop 8 on the ballot was "impossible". Prop 8 passing was "impossible". Defeating legislated homosexual marriage in Maine was "impossible". Removing judges from the Iowa Supreme Court was "impossible". In the 48 years that Iowa voters had the right to a judicial retention vote, not a single judge had been removed from the bench until 2010.</p>
<p>This is, whether you believe it or not, where God, faith and religion come in. </p>
<p>"With men it is impossible; but to God all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26</p>
<p>I know that you don't understand what you are dealing with here, PRS. You think that God, religion and faith are a bunch of bunk. But how, then, do you explain all of the "impossible" things which we have accomplished?</p>
<p>When Maggie set out for California to work on Prop 8, she needed $5 million that she did NOT have. It came! </p>
<p>Watch over time, PRS. Observe. See what happens and try to figure out how it came about when it was "impossible".</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PRS</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26648</link>
		<dc:creator>PRS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don, how is advancing the agenda impossible?  Maryland is pretty much guaranteed to pass marriage equality in 2011.  Rhode Island is a strong possibility.

Reversing marriage equality in any of the states that have it is impossible (INCLUDING Iowa, based on the Democrat&#039;s refusal to bring the issue to a vote).

So if oen or two more states jump on the marriage equality bandwagon, that sure seems like progress and advancing to me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don, how is advancing the agenda impossible?  Maryland is pretty much guaranteed to pass marriage equality in 2011.  Rhode Island is a strong possibility.</p>
<p>Reversing marriage equality in any of the states that have it is impossible (INCLUDING Iowa, based on the Democrat's refusal to bring the issue to a vote).</p>
<p>So if oen or two more states jump on the marriage equality bandwagon, that sure seems like progress and advancing to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26640</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PRS:

That really doesn&#039;t matter one way or the other, PRS. What is important is that Republicans control the House which means that Gayocrats can&#039;t pass any legislation of which House Republicans don&#039;t approve. 

This puts Obama in the position of having to use things like rule making and executive orders to get anything done of which Republicans don&#039;t approve. That puts the heat right on Obama. He can&#039;t pull the strings safely from the background any more. He&#039;s going to have to take the hits for what he does. This comes as we are moving into the 2012 presidential elections. This is the worst possible nightmare for Obama.

Don&#039;t hold your breath waiting for Obama to back your agenda. He&#039;s more concerned about trying to get re-elected than he is about your cause and he knows that backing your agenda will result in a net loss of votes. He&#039;s going to throw your cause under the bus in favor of his own self-interest.

The legislatures of 21 states have flipped from Gayocrat to Republican. That will be in effect for at least the next two years. The prospects of advancing your agenda in a major way at the state level just withered up and our prospects for advancing tradtional marriage at the state level just got a lot brighter. 

So don&#039;t focus too much on things like a marriage amendment at the federal level. You have too many other things to worry about come January.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PRS:</p>
<p>That really doesn't matter one way or the other, PRS. What is important is that Republicans control the House which means that Gayocrats can't pass any legislation of which House Republicans don't approve. </p>
<p>This puts Obama in the position of having to use things like rule making and executive orders to get anything done of which Republicans don't approve. That puts the heat right on Obama. He can't pull the strings safely from the background any more. He's going to have to take the hits for what he does. This comes as we are moving into the 2012 presidential elections. This is the worst possible nightmare for Obama.</p>
<p>Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to back your agenda. He's more concerned about trying to get re-elected than he is about your cause and he knows that backing your agenda will result in a net loss of votes. He's going to throw your cause under the bus in favor of his own self-interest.</p>
<p>The legislatures of 21 states have flipped from Gayocrat to Republican. That will be in effect for at least the next two years. The prospects of advancing your agenda in a major way at the state level just withered up and our prospects for advancing tradtional marriage at the state level just got a lot brighter. </p>
<p>So don't focus too much on things like a marriage amendment at the federal level. You have too many other things to worry about come January.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26637</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s obvious that you homosexual &quot;marriage&quot; activists, Patrick, are spending almost all of your time asserting how you are going to win. What&#039;s REALLY going on is that you have suffered loss upon loss and you&#039;re trying to convince yourselves that you can still win. Let me resolve that for you, Patrick. You&#039;re are losing now and you are going to continue to lose until your agenda is a footnote in history. 

What finished you off for good was your &quot;FCKH8&quot; videos. You can defend them all you want and all you are doing is digging a deeper hole for yourselves. 

Americans abhor child abuse. Because of your &quot;FCKH8&quot; videos, any support you had among heteros is going to evaporate. You crossed the line into one of the biggest taboos in American culture, a taboo which even liberals find vile. Your cause is toast now, Patrick.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's obvious that you homosexual "marriage" activists, Patrick, are spending almost all of your time asserting how you are going to win. What's REALLY going on is that you have suffered loss upon loss and you're trying to convince yourselves that you can still win. Let me resolve that for you, Patrick. You're are losing now and you are going to continue to lose until your agenda is a footnote in history. </p>
<p>What finished you off for good was your "FCKH8" videos. You can defend them all you want and all you are doing is digging a deeper hole for yourselves. </p>
<p>Americans abhor child abuse. Because of your "FCKH8" videos, any support you had among heteros is going to evaporate. You crossed the line into one of the biggest taboos in American culture, a taboo which even liberals find vile. Your cause is toast now, Patrick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PRS</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26635</link>
		<dc:creator>PRS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans are going to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass a federal marriage amendment......how?

And Obama is going to sign it?

What planet is Michael Steele living on?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are going to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass a federal marriage amendment......how?</p>
<p>And Obama is going to sign it?</p>
<p>What planet is Michael Steele living on?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ConservativeNY</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26629</link>
		<dc:creator>ConservativeNY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:01:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#039;t get cocky, Patrick.  SSM advocates also said that Proposition 8 in California would never pass.  They said the same thing about Quesion 1 in Maine too.  And they passed in spite of all the opposition against it.  If they prove one thing it is that the values that support the natural family will endure against all odds because that&#039;s the natural order of things.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don't get cocky, Patrick.  SSM advocates also said that Proposition 8 in California would never pass.  They said the same thing about Quesion 1 in Maine too.  And they passed in spite of all the opposition against it.  If they prove one thing it is that the values that support the natural family will endure against all odds because that's the natural order of things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26616</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What a joke! A federal marriage amendment? Never happen. I certainly hope the GOP continues to work that though!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a joke! A federal marriage amendment? Never happen. I certainly hope the GOP continues to work that though!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.nomblog.com/2819/comment-page-1#comment-26607</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nomblog.com/?p=2819#comment-26607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is bad :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is bad <img src='http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
