XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
      
   "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message news:GzMUv.234027$DX.64745@fx06.iad...   
      
   On 9/24/2014 10:12 AM, Wayne wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message   
   > news:HdzUv.240259$JH1.29846@fx08.iad...   
   >   
   > On 9/23/2014 12:57 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >> On 9/23/2014 11:27 AM, Lee wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> La. state judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional   
   >>> Sept 22 2014   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage is   
   >>> unconstitutional, in part because it   
   >>> violates equal protection rights, a state   
   >>> judge ruled Monday.   
   >>   
   >> Protection of what right?   
   >>   
   >   
   > # Fourteenth Amendment, section one   
   > # "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to   
   > # the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the   
   > # State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which   
   > # shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United   
   > # States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or   
   > # property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its   
   > # jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   
   >   
   > # Contract laws, of which marriage laws are a subset, should not   
   > # discriminate on anything other than the ability to consent or enter into   
   > # a valid contract.   
   >   
   > Nice cite.  Too bad it isn't relevant except in the strange minds of   
   > proggies.   
   >   
   > 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?   
   >   
      
   # Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,   
   # shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the   
   people."   
      
   # As the Constitution does not mention the right of a man to marry a   
   # woman, that right has the same constitutional standing as the right of a   
   # man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman, which is none.   
   # That is not to say that the right does not exist, just that the USC   
   # doesn't address it.   
      
   # The Court's decision lies in the area of "privileges and immunities" as   
   # well as "equal protection"   
   # If the law grants protections and privileges to someone simply because   
   # they are married, or in a civil union, to someone of a different gender,   
   # (which it does), it needs to grant those same protections and privileges   
   # to anyone who is married, or in a civil union, to someone of the same   
   # gender.   
      
   Another elaborate and illogical conclusion reached by the courts.   
      
   The simple solution:   
   Get the government out of the marriage business, and record legal unions.   
   In the process, the government could define what sex/numbers/ages/etc. will   
   be able to have a legal union.   
      
   Of course, anyone not fitting a legal union definition given by the   
   government can use the same 9th argument you presented.   
      
   Same sex "marriage" essentially destroys marriage.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Judge Edward Rubin said the ban violated   
   >>> the 14th Amendment and the constitutional   
   >>> requirement that states give "full faith   
   >>> and credit" to each other's laws. His   
   >>> ruling came in same-sex adoption case of   
   >>> Angela Costanza and her partner, Chasity   
   >>> Brewer.   
   >>   
   >> And will also allow 12 year old children to cross State lines to get   
   >> abortions without Parental consent and notification?   
   >   
   > Legally? No, a 12 year old would need a court order to have such a   
   > medical procedure done without parental consent, and the court would   
   > notify the parents.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It will also allow children to get married at ages 14 and maybe even 12   
   >> with no parental consent.   
   >   
   > The minimum age for marriage in any of the US states without parental,   
   > or judicial in the case of wards of the Court, consent is 18, 21 in   
   > Mississippi.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> That will make pedophilia a legal process and a legal form of marriage.   
   >> So that by legalizing gay marriage this way, the judge has also   
   >> unwittingly "or maybe on purpose" made pedophilia marriages a nation   
   >> wide reality.  Thank you Liberals for unleashing those sexual predators   
   >> on the children of America.   
   >>   
   >> So someone Male or Female (As in teachers that want to marry their   
   >> students) will be able to coax a child away from home to get married and   
   >> fulfill the pedophile dream of "legal sex" with a child.  And thanks to   
   >> easy divorce in some other States the children can be divorced and the   
   >> pedophile can move on to their next child victim in a few years after   
   >> the child no longer sexually excites the pedophile.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The minimum age of sexual consent in any US state is 16, in nearly all   
   > it is 18. Any adult trying this would end up in prison, and on the sex   
   > offenders list for the rest of their lives.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> This Judge should be scrutinized for child porn and child sex to see if   
   >> they are also a pedophile or is this just a really High IQ Liberal judge   
   >> that can't understand the law like Obama is a really high IQ Liberal   
   >> constitutional lawyer that can't understand the constitution.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/louisiana/2014/09/22/la-   
   >>> state-judge-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/16073451/   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)