XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
   "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   news:mnmfb7$q87$2@dont-email.me...   
   > On 7/9/2015 12:14 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's the argument made (one of them) by gay rights advocates -- There   
   >>>> is   
   >>>> no specific ban on gay marriage, therefore it must be allowed. It is   
   >>>> precisely the argument made in all states where the state courts   
   >>>> imposed   
   >>>> gay marriage.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's nonsense.  Please provide citations to back your claim.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Look up gay marriage in Hawaii. The argument made was that there was no   
   >> law forbidding it, therefore it had to be allowed.   
   >   
   > Citation?   
   >   
      
   In don't understand why I have to keep doing your homework for you,   
      
      
   HISTORY:   
   In May 1993, a state supreme court responded seriously to an ad hoc marriage   
   lawsuit for the first time ever. Without the backing of any organized local   
   or national LGBT group, three same-sex couples sued Hawaii for marriage   
   licenses. In Baehr v. Lewin (later Baehr v. Miike), the Hawaii Supreme Court   
   suggested the potential validity of the lawsuit, arguing that the   
   denial of marriage to same-sex couples might be sex   
   discrimination. The Hawaii Supreme Court sent the case back to   
   the trial court for a new hearing. Soon thereafter, the Hawaii legislature   
   passed the Reciprocal Beneficiaries statute, which made it easier for   
   unmarried friends, partners, or family members to care for each other.   
      
      
      
      
   The  text means, since there is no legislation to blocks gay   
   marriage, then gay marriage must be allowed. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT MADE BY   
   THE GAYS. When it won, then the same argument was made in other   
   jurisdictions, and we now have gay marriage. That's how progressives work.   
   The pick at the bare threads until the sweater unravels. Next to fall will   
   be incest. What's wrong with that? Men marrying boys. Why not?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)