XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: fmhlaw@comcast.net   
      
   On 10/2/2014 4:00 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "Just Wondering" wrote in message   
   > news:542d1635$0$28769$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   >> On 10/1/2014 6:53 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message   
   >>> news:542c9eef$0$16363$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   >>>> On 10/1/2014 6:31 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:542c8b40$0$4797$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   >>>>>> On 10/1/2014 2:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Just Wondering wrote in news:542c5f8d$0$1917   
   >>>>>>> $882e7ee2@usenet-news.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"?   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|