XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 9/26/2014 10:27 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   > In article <54234070$0$1917$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,   
   > fmhlaw@comcast.net says...   
   >> On 9/24/2014 3:59 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   >>> In article , mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
   >>> says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message news:HdzUv.240259$JH1.2   
   846@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?   
   >>>   
   >>> Because there is nothing stopping them from any other type of   
   >>> contractual agreement, duh.   
   >>>   
   >> Sure there is.  Many types of contracts are void on public policy grounds.   
   >   
   > Ah, you got a hair splitter for Christmas, how nice.   
   > How about they are afforded equal protection under the law.   
   >   
   They already are.  They always have been.  A person's right to marry is   
   not affected by sexual orientation.  A man can marry a woman, and a   
   woman marry a man, regardless of whether either or both of them is   
   heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or any other ___sexual you care to name.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)