XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: me4guns@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Gunner Asch"  wrote in message   
   news:nrlg2a5oic0dgv9fdqi8dddkcn8j1bjpir@4ax.com...   
   > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:49:47 -0700, "Wayne"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   >>news:0hae2at8uv78jibt17qgbsd9sd3n8e3hlv@4ax.com...   
   >>   
   >>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.   
   >>   
   >># Any religious belief that justifies bigotry comes from a religion that   
   >># isn't worth following.   
   >>   
   >>But, aren't you one of those "get religion out of government" types?   
   >>It works both ways.  Government should get the hell out of religion and   
   >>record civil unions, not marriages.   
   >   
   > So no one here would complain if I added my live in lady friend to my   
   > marraige? The wife is up for it. Shrug   
      
   I could care less. That is between you and the 2 women involved.   
      
   The only thing I would care about is that the rights of all 3 of you are   
   protected and enforced where the 3 of you can't agree, or if there are 2   
   survivors, then and only then should anyone outside of your union care. IOW,   
   if they decide to divorce you and all 3 of you agree on the terms of the   
   divorce then that's the way it will be, otherwise the law will establish an   
   equitable breakup.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)