XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   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.   
      
   What nonsense. Marriages are found throughout the world, churches are   
   not. Most people on earth are not Christian but somehow you magically   
   think that your particularly bigoted brand of Christianity has some   
   rights over national social convention. It does not.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Did you intend to make a coherent argument there?   
      
   You failed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)