XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: davidjhughes.tx@netzero.com
On 9/28/2014 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "David J. Hughes" wrote in message
> news:w2PVv.315284$y33.307835@fx28.iad...
>
> On 9/27/2014 10:41 AM, 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.
>
>
> # How do you figure that?
> # As along as Bob and Bill, or Jane and Amy, aren't married in your
> # church, how does that affect or harm you, your church or your beliefs?
>
> It equates homosexuality with hetero marriage. Some churches object to
> that.
Some churches object to dancing in public, using alcohol, tobacco, or
product containing caffeine, eating pork products, or having sex outside
of marriage.
That is their right.
As I am not a member of their church, they have no right to
limit what I do.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
