XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:39:52 -0700, Wayne wrote:   
      
   > "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message news:XZbWv.284000$DJ7.242004@fx02.iad...   
   >   
   > On 9/28/2014 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message   
   >> news:w2PVv.315284$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.   
   >   
   > A bullshit argument.  The government insinuated itself into church tenants   
   > of marriage, not the other way around.   
      
   You have it arse backwards.   
   The definition of marriage as "one man, one woman" is a   
   religous one to begin with, and imposed on the state.  Just   
   ask the (formerly) polygamist Mormons....   
      
      
      
   >   
   > It's the same as if the government decided that churches could not prohibit   
   > dancing in public, prohibit alcohol, prohibit smoking and all else you   
   > listed.   
      
   They can't and they don't -- within churches.  Church rules   
   on church ground, state rules on public grounds -- that's   
   the way separation of the two works.  Deal with it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)