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 7/13/2015 12:49 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > "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.   
      
   I don't disagree the lawsuits were in part brought because there was no   
   definition that excluded gays.  But, you keep saying that it is why the   
   plaintiffs won and as a result they continued to make this argument and   
   win again.  That claim of yours is flat-out wrong.  Plaintiffs won   
   because of unlawful sex discrimination and they couldn't make the   
   argument you claim they made anymore because all types of DOMAs were   
   then passed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)