XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:36:48 -0400, WangoTango    
   wrote:   
      
   >In article <5426724f$0$27326$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,   
   >fmhlaw@comcast.net says...   
   >> On 9/26/2014 10:27 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   >> > In article <54234070$0$1917$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,   
   >> > fmhlaw@comcast.net says...   
   >> >> On 9/24/2014 3:59 PM, WangoTango wrote:   
   >> >>> In article , mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
   >> >>> says...   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message news:HdzUv.240259$JH   
   .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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   It's routine for the bigots to make that claim. Of course their racist   
   parents were saying that a white man could marry any white woman he   
   wanted, so things are slowly improving. Remember that most of these   
   bigots have kids who roll their eyes at such nonsense and are   
   embarrassed that their old man is a bigot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)