<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>The Future</title>
		<description>Comments for The Future at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 03:14:19 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5277</link>
			<description>The impeachment of Judge Vaughn Walker should have been a major issue in California's recent elections of House members and his conviction and dismissal a major issue in the Boxer v. Fiorina race for Senate.  It wasn't.

P.S. The Vermont case M.C. mentioned above is more reason for moving infants birthed out of wedlock into adoption by heterosexual married parents. - Micha Elyi</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:31:32 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5267</link>
			<description>This case may not have been adjudicated in the States, but we are already adjudicating unfairly against Christian parents.  Consider what has just happened in a Vermont Supreme Court ruling.  One partner in a lesbian couple was artificially inseminated and gave birth to a girl eight years ago.  During the past eight years, that mother left her partner, renounced homosexuality, and returned to her faith in Christ.  The Supreme Court in Vermont has ruled in favor of the lesbian ex-partner to gain custody of the child.  This came after the birth mother had refused for some time to comply with court-ordered visitation rights for the ex-partner.  The Christian birth mother has said that such visits were harmful to her daughter.

A woman who has no biological connection whatsoever with a child is being awarded custody, whereas the biological mother is being denied the opportunity to rear her child in no small part because she is a Christian who does not want her child exposed to the deleterious influence of her lesbian ex-partner. - Magister Christianus</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:01:08 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5265</link>
			<description>Allowing an openly homosexual judge to decide the legality of Proposition 8 is like allowing a guy wearing a gold-and-green cap and a tattoo of Vince Lombardi on his arm to fairly referee a Packers-Bears game.  - Grump</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:06:48 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5264</link>
			<description>Chesterton: &quot;Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.&quot;

 - George</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:47:19 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5260</link>
			<description>To me, this essay by Professor Beckwith is of central importance.  Why?  Because it highlights the fact that in our times toleration, i.e., civil tolerance, trumps personal morality  every time.  The moral high ground now belongs to those brandishing tolerance as the supreme civic value and virtue.  I'm not sure that we can do anything about this. It's hard, if not impossible, to argue against tolerance. - John McCarthy</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:46:30 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5259</link>
			<description>I recently won an argument with a judge at supper who, when asked what was new, stated he had performed a Civil Union(?)the evening before. He told the two males he wished the law allowed him to marry them! I replied &quot;How could you allow persons to marry when they are PERMANENTLY BANNED FROM DONATING BLOOD?&quot; The Federal ban states: &quot;A man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once, may never donate blood &quot;.  (The integrity of the blood supply overrides being politically correct.) - Bill</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:34:02 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-future.html#comment-5258</link>
			<description>This is so scary, thank you for this excellent article especially the pre and post political explanation and the imiation of the natural family.  Pax Chirsti vobiscum - Achilles</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:00:03 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
