XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:56:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:17:34 -0700, "Wayne"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>
>Good statement!
Who cares what religions accept. The more bigoted they are, the faster
they destroy themselves.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
