XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 9/27/2014 2:24 AM, Alex W. wrote:   
   > 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.   
    >   
   If you truly believe that, you must agree that a father has equal rights   
   with a mother to decide whether his unborn child should live or die by   
   abortion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)