XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 24/09/2014 23:44, Just Wondering wrote:   
   > On 9/24/2014 11:28 AM, deep wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:15:11 -0600, Just Wondering   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the   
   >>>>> right to   
   >>>>> marry a woman.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right   
   >>>>> to marry   
   >>>>> man B?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Because they are still people.   And the law says we have the   
   >>>> responsibility to treat all people equally.   
   >>>>   
   >>> We already do.  All people have always had the right to marry.  Marriage   
   >>> by definition is between a man and a woman.  There has never been a law   
   >>> against a homosexual man or woman marrying.  Just like anyone else, if a   
   >>> homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a woman to do it with.   
   >>> And if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has to find a man to do it   
   >>> with.  There of any number of examples of homosexuals marrying that way.   
   >>>   Similarly, a heterosexual man has never had a right to "marry" another   
   >>> man, and a heterosexual woman has never had a right to "marry" another   
   >>> woman.  By definition, a man-man relationship, and a woman-woman   
   >>> relationship, is not marriage.   
   >>   
   >> No it's not.   You're wrong.   The 14th amendment says all people have   
   >> equal rights under the law.   You have no right to decide what the   
   >> conditions are for someone else to marry.   
   >>   
   > States have the right, 10th Amendment, to enact laws regulating   
   > state-sanctioned marriages.  If a state has " no right to decide what the   
   >  > conditions are for someone else to marry," then all laws against   
   > bigamous, underage and incestuous marriages are also unconstitutional.   
   >   
      
   States may claim that right -- that's different to actually having such   
   a right.   
      
   In legal terms, a marriage is a contract between consenting and informed   
   adults.  No more and no less.  To ban people from entering into certain   
   contracts is a clear restriction on their rights, and will in due course   
   be rectified.   
      
   As for bigamy or underage spouses, there are clear and justifiable   
   reasons for banning such: these contracts were not entered into with   
   informed consent.  A child cannot give such consent, and a second spouse   
   is ignorant of a fundamental fact about the proposed contract.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)