XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:lkim2a5da62hdaq7rrjt4p8b4leuhd4jrl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:50:00 -0700, "Wayne"
wrote:
>
>
>"Free Lunch" wrote in message
>news:8scm2ah87nmqg5smgf28h35ur47qkf5n11@4ax.com...
>
>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$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
>>> > fmhlaw@comcast.net says...
>>> >> On 9/24/2014 3:59 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>> >>> In article , mygarbagecan@verizon.net
>>> >>> says...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "David J. Hughes" wrote in message
>>> >>>> news:HdzUv.240259$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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
># It's routine for the bigots to make that claim.
>
>So "bigot" equals someone who doesn't agree with you?
# No. Bigot is someone who makes silly claims to justify their refusal to
# treat others the way they are treated under the law. fmhlaw@comcast.net
# is one such bigot.
OK, so someone who disagrees with you is a bigot and makes silly claims?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
