XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.california, or.politics   
   XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama, alt.revisionism   
   XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration   
   XPost: alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism   
   XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con   
      
   On 4/29/2015 7:30 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   > On 4/29/2015 9:30 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >> On 4/29/2015 11:13 AM, deep wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:00:31 -0700, Rudy Canoza   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 4/28/2015 7:07 PM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>> On 04/28/2015 09:04 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>> David Hartung  wrote in   
   >>>>>> news:Eo-dnbAGev5WV6LInZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 04/28/2015 09:06 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> David Hartung  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>> news:vqWdndN6pNvxxqPInZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@giganews.com:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 04/27/2015 09:06 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> If you don't like gay marriage then don't   
   >>>>>>>>>> get gay married. Why is that so difficult for   
   >>>>>>>>>> Hartung and company?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Not the issue.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The problem of same sex marriage has been discussed ad-nauseum in   
   >>>>>>>>> this forum, and it is very apparent that we will never agree. The   
   >>>>>>>>> subject now is whether or not same sex marriage is a constitutional   
   >>>>>>>>> right, and whether or not those of us who have religious objections   
   >>>>>>>>> to same sex marriage will be allowed our constitutional right to   
   >>>>>>>>> exercise our faith.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>         You have the religious right not get gay   
   >>>>>>>> married. What is your religious right to prevent   
   >>>>>>>> OTHERS from getting gay married?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What is your right to use the courts to change the law?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       You mean like Loving v Virginia?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       Are you still defending the "state's right"   
   >>>>>> to ban interracial marriage?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The last time I checked, this is not about interracial marriage.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is perfectly analogous.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is, now huh?   So then you support a States' right to make   
   >>> interracial "marriages" illegal.   And if mixed races want to marry   
   >>> they must call it a "civil union".   
   >>   
   >> I would say NO, but a Religion can refuse gay or inter racial marriages   
   >> and yes they would have to be State or Federal "civil unions" that fit   
   >> under the 14th amendment which says the government has to treat all   
   >> people equal.   
   >>   
   >> Nothing says the religious definition of MARRIAGE has to fit the   
   >> Governments need for equality... being equal is all the problem for the   
   >> government to solve not for the private sector and religion.....   
   >>   
   >> There is NO amendment that says *the People* can't discriminate.   
      
   Statutory laws says they may not.  I happen to think those laws are   
   wrong, but I'm wondering what constitutional provision they violate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)