XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net
"Alex W." wrote in message
news:1ljun120lxk7p$.u2dpi79wdrrm$.dlg@40tude.net...
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.
# That's because those legal unions as proposed were never
# fully equal to the secular marriage.
# Civil unions are only deemed valid in the state where they
# were entered into. So if Jane and Marylin get hitched in
# Vermont but Jane has a skiing accident in Colorado, Marylin
# has *no rights* because she is not recognised as a next of
# kin. Nor are such unions recognised for federal tax
# purposes: Jane and Marylin could not file a joint tax
# return, nor are they eligible for any married-couple tax
# breaks. If Jane dies, Marylin would have no rights to
# decide how to bury her, nor would she inherit if Jane was
# stupid enough not to make a will. The list of differences
# is quite exhausting; do you really want me to go through it
# all?
Ahhhh...the old party line. You completely disregarded my "solution".
Pass a law that legal unions shall have the same legal standing as
marriages.
That destroys your complete argument. However, that law would not
accomplish the PC goal of forcing religion to accept homosexuality.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
