thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:

[..]

From the Supreme Court's "Loving vs. Virginia" decision:

We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which
restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt
that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial
classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection
Clause.

Please note the part that says: "We have consistently denied the
constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
account of race."

Marriage is, according to the above decision, a right.

No, that's not what's being said. The piece you've quoted says two
things:

1) The court has overturned many laws which restrict the rights of
citizens on account of race, and

2) The restriction of the freedom to marry on account of race is in
conflict with the *right* to equal protection.

It doesn't say marriage is a right, but it says that anti-miscegenation
laws are unconstutional given the individuals' right to equal
protection.

but lets take it to the heart of the matter just for shits and giggles.
Can you say that the risk of a lifestyle that under the broad term as same
sex union and more specifically know as Homosexual unions is greater,
lesser or equal to Heterosexual unions, more specifically know as opposite
sex unions. Using as example for comparison the rate of Sexually
transmitted diseases. A percentage of targeted groups, the two in this
case being Homosexual and heterosexual.

thomas p wrote:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:38:57 -0800, "Spanky"

<Spanky@send.your.spam.to

gov@wa.gov> wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:cr4821tkkka2o0aquj45rtd8qilqu4p2be@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:07:37 -0800, "Spanky"

<Spanky@send.your.spam.to

gov@wa.gov> wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:84v6215v96sivu2vj5uja6ic3vakm3gi0f@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:19:58 GMT, "Maverick"

<justgopublic@nomail.com>

wrote:

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in

message

news:RcCdnajaHI0Y27_fRVn-hA@golden.net...

Maverick wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsm9jg.jx5ke51dbkwr6N%usenet@mile23.c0m...

Maverick <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gslkp9.30s5ovuah1tqN%usenet@mile23.c0m...

Maverick <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsjnoa.l4ttqa1bouoasN%usenet@mile23.c0m...

Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:

<snip>

A heterosexual does not have the right to marry one of their

own

sex.

Yes they do in Canada! {YMMV}

When Canada starts making the laws in the United States that
will be noted.

PLONK

If same-sex marriage is permitted, there will be no legal reason

to

limit it to homosexuals.

Defined as same sex is broader than homosexual unions.

The legalisation of same-sex marriage is what is being sought.

Without some

evidence that homosexual lifestyle is anything other than choice

that

route fails.

That is a complete non sequitur. Whether homosexuality is a

choice

(absurd idea on its face) or not, has nothing to do with

legalising

same-sex marriage.

Due process under the wider scope of marriage itself has

shown some movement, yet still the states are in charge of there
futures with legislative action by amending their states

constitution

if they so desire to close the door on same sex unions.

Not if they conflict with the US Constitution.

Now that will be an interesting day indeed.

Ever hear of "equal protection"?

equal protection as in cannot deny a same sex union based upon sexual
orientation, race, religion, gender, etc, or due process.?

but lets take it to the heart of the matter just for shits and
giggles. Can you say that the risk of a lifestyle that under the broad
term as same sex union and more specifically know as Homosexual unions
is greater, lesser or equal to Heterosexual unions, more specifically
know as opposite sex unions. Using as example for comparison the rate
of Sexually transmitted diseases. A percentage of targeted groups, the
two in this case being Homosexual and heterosexual.

One always has

the option of relocating to a climate more favorable to ones

needs,

don't they?

The states can also stop denying the same rights to all of its
citizens.

Wouldnt that be the states doing what they are empowered to do?
handle
their own internal politics as mandated by their state

constitution.

Which are not superior to the US Constitution.

Gonna take on Arizona

The Arizona Court of Appeals has rejected homosexual marriage in a
case in which two homosexuals tried to gain lawful status as
"married"
spouses under state regulations.

In his decision, Judge Timmer wrote: "Neither the United States
Supreme Court nor any Arizona court has recognized that the
fundamental right to marry includes the freedom to choose a

same-sex

spouse."

The court ruled that there was a reasonable link between

traditional

marriage, procreation and child-rearing.

"The history of the law's treatment of marriage as an institution
involving one man and one woman, together with recent, explicit
reaffirmations of that view, lead invariably to the conclusion that
the right to enter a same-sex marriage is not a fundamental liberty
interest protected by due process," the court said.

From the Supreme Court's "Loving vs. Virginia" decision:

We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which
restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.
There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely
because
of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal
Protection Clause.

Please note the part that says: "We have consistently denied the
constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens

on

account of race."

Marriage is, according to the above decision, a right.

Judge Timmer disagrees with you,

your reference says restrict the rights of citizens on account of
race, I do not see any other condition, nope it says "On account of
RACE" yup dats what it says..

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.

Please note the part that says: "We have consistently denied the
constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens
on account of race."

Marriage is, according to the above decision, a right.

Judge Timmer disagrees with you,

your reference says restrict the rights of citizens on account of
race, I do not see any other condition, nope it says "On account of
RACE" yup dats what it says..