XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
      
   "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?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)