XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
      
   "Alex W."  wrote in message news:c8nahmFnvqkU1@mid.individual.net...   
      
   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.   
      
   Funny you mention religion.  You know damned well that same sex "marriage"   
   is a direct attack on religious beliefs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)