XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:09:53 -0600, Just Wondering    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   How many men? How many women?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)