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:mnrqae$s4b$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 7/11/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It's exactly what it says. The state of Hawaii -- some county clerk   
   >> somewhere -- would not issue a license because only a man and a woman   
   >> could get one, although there was no legal prohibition to deny the   
   >> issuance. Nothing said that gays could not marry, so they wanted the   
   >> same marriage rights as straights -- nothing said they could not,   
   >> therefore they should be allowed to. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT. It also won   
   >> the day.   
   >   
   > One more time.  That wasn't the argument.  The argument that won (from   
   > your link) was it was unlawful sex discrimination.  Stop making up shit   
   > without citations.   
   >   
      
   The discrimination charges arose from the FACT that there was no definition   
   of whom could marry, yet the state -- Hawaii -- would marry one couple but   
   not another. Without a legal definition of marriage the argument becomes,   
   there is no rule against gay marriage, so gay marriage must be allowed. This   
   view is why states went into a scramble to define marriage. Even the feds   
   went into a tizzy to define marriage as one man and one woman.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)