XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: davidjhughes.tx@netzero.com   
      
   On 9/28/2014 1:47 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:   
   > 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   
   >   
      
   No complaints from me.  Just be aware that your two wives may try to   
   talk you into adding a young stud to the marriage in a few years.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)