On Nov 9, 8:42=A0pm, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:28=A0pm, Emerson Wainwright
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:22=A0pm, strabo wrote:
>
> > > clouddreamer wrote:
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > >> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:52:30 +0000, Californians With Common Sens=
e
> > > >>> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Proposition 8 is irrelevant. =A0No law trumps the 14th Amendment.
>
> > > >> No one suggests it does. =A0The Equal Protection clause is not bei=
ng
> > > >> violated. =A0The state may set the rules for, and define, marriage=
. =A0As
> > > >> long as those rules apply equally to everyone, regardless of any
> > > >> self-imagined membership in some class, no equal protection violat=
ion
> > > >> occurs.
>
> > > > But those rules do not apply equally to everyone. People are being
> > > > excluded.
>
> > > There are males and there are females.
>
> > Are there also homo.uals and hetero.uals?
>
> > > Both are treated equally under
> > > the law.
>
> > Are the homo.uals being treated as equals to the hetero.uals?
>
> =A0 =A0They have the same equal rights to marriage as hetero.uals
Incorrect. |
