XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 27/09/2014 10:16, Just Wondering wrote:   
   > On 9/26/2014 10:27 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   >> In article <54234070$0$1917$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,   
   >> fmhlaw@comcast.net says...   
   >>> On 9/24/2014 3:59 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   >>>> In article , mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
   >>>> says...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:HdzUv.240259$JH1.29846@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?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
      
   To restrict a person's rights by virtue of their anatomy is as primitive   
   and indefensible as restricting their rights by virtue of their religion   
   or skin colour.  The days when it was acceptable to say that anyone   
   could marry anyone else as long as it wasn't a union of black and white   
   are long over.  This ban on same-sex marriages is simply the last   
   holdover from the bad old days.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)