XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net
"Alex W." wrote in message
news:ruqe8dprgww9$.1wsec1xpe3p6v.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:41:58 -0700, Wayne wrote:
> "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.
# Arrant rubbish, codswallop and tommyrot.
# If same-sex marriage were an attack on religion, we'd see
# them picketing churches and demonstrating outside mosques
# and temples. They'd be suing in ecclesiastical courts, not
# secular courts.
# Same sex marriage is about legal stuff, not religious stuff.
# It is about having equal access to all the benefits and
# perks that hetero couples enjoy. There is nothing religious
# about getting a surviving spouse's pension, or visitation
# rights when a spouse is in hospital, or getting the same tax
# breaks.
No it's not. Otherwise a simple law would have sufficed. That law would
say: legal unions shall have the same legal standing as marriages.
Legal unions are NOT acceptable to same sex couples, even if the legal
aspects are identical.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
