--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection > > > of the laws."
> And rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges. > So? (Note that I did not claim that the Equal Protection Clause > supported gay marriage. What exactly then do you suppose they ment by "equal protection" How equal is it when the protection is only afforded to one group and not another? What about Life librity and the presuit of happiness? Are those only for christian heterosexuals? Isn't it unequal if a man's soul mate and life bonded partner (i.e wife) can be counted as a dependent for tax reasons, but a womans wife can not? > I never said that, did I? > (What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials > was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back. > You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks. Argue like an > intellectual, and don't worry about proving your credentials...) Strange, this last paragraph seems to it'self contain an ad hominem attack. Kettle? Black? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
