XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/11/2015 2:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > "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,   
      
   It's your claim.  You need to back it up.   
      
   >    
   > 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.   
      
   No. That is not what it says.  It says not allowing gays to marry is   
   unlawful sex discrimination.  That logic applies independent of, and has   
   nothing to do with, whether legislation exists that blocks such marriages.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Per above, that is not the argument.  But let's assume it was for the   
   moment.  That argument could not possibly be used because the states all   
   passed DOMAs (legislation that specifically does not permit gays to marry).   
      
   > 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)