XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:15:55 -0700, "Wayne"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"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.   
      
   But the legal aspects never were identical.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)