XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 10/1/2014 11:01 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > Mitchell Holman  wrote in   
   > news:XnsA3B8D3316F71Anoemailattnet@216.196.121.131:   
   >   
   >> Just Wondering  wrote in   
   >> news:542b5c88$0$4889$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:   
   >>   
   >>> On 9/30/2014 6:41 PM, Wayne wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "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?   
   >>>>   
   >>> It sounds like in his book, someone who points out a virtually   
   >>> universal historical truth as old as the institution of marriage   
   >>> itself, that contradicts what in his mind is "how things should be",   
   >>> is a bigot making silly claims.   
   >>     What is that "historical truth"?   
   >>     Arranged marriage?   
   >>     Forced marriage?   
   >>     Polygamous marriage?   
   >>     Child marriage?   
   >   
   > Among others.   
   >   
   Do y'all really lose track of a thread's subject so quickly?  I had   
   pointed out that marriage is between a man and a woman.  That is a   
   historical truth.  The result of a marriage is a relationship consisting   
   of a husband and a wife.  That is a historical truth.  NOT two husbands,   
   or two wives.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)