XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: Davis@neutralc.com 
  
 € 
  
 Uncle, Bill, Paul wrote: 
  
 > On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:53:47 GMT, David Davis  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > >Uncle, Bill, Paul wrote: 
 > > 
 > >> Dating the Anti-Gay Backlash - Oval Office embraces homophobia 
 > > 
 > >Hardly sparky, even Bork says you are wrong. 
 > > 
 > >By Robert H. Bork 
 > > 
 > >"Many court watchers believe that within five to 10 years the U.S. 
 > >Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to 
 > >homosexual marriage, ... The chosen instrument will be the Equal 
 > >Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After all, if state law 
 > >forbids Fred to marry Henry, aren't they denied equal protection 
 > >when the law permits Tom and Jane to marry"? 
 > 
 > The fourteenth has absolutely no bearing on sexual orientation (read 
 > it carefully and you will see what it refers to) and cannot be 
 > wrenched into having any by even the most creative of homosexuals. 
  
 So now Pimp Boy is sayng Judge Robert Bork the most conservative 
 person on earth, outside of John Asscroft, is a creative homosexual. 
 Been smoking too much crack? 
  
 If a man can marry a woman, that same woman must have the right 
 to marry a woman or her rights of equal protection and due process 
 have been violated. 
  
 > € 
 > 
 > You might pay particular attention to the narrative that says, 
 > 
 > "The Development of Substantive Due Process 
 > 
 > Although many years after ratification the Court ventured the not very 
 > informative observation that the Fourteenth Amendment ''operates to 
 > extend . . . the same protection against arbitrary state legislation, 
 > affecting life, liberty and property, as is offered by the Fifth 
 > Amendment,'' and that ''ordinarily if an act of Congress is valid 
 > under the Fifth Amendment it would be hard to say that a state law in 
 > like terms was void under the Fourteenth,'' 35 the significance of the 
 > due process clause as a restraint on state action appears to have been 
 > grossly underestimated by litigants no less than by the Court in the 
 > years immediately following its adoption. From the outset of our 
 > constitutional history due process of law as it occurs in the Fifth 
 > Amendment had been recognized as a restraint upon government, but, 
 > with the conspicuous exception of the Dred Scott decision, 36 only in 
 > the narrower sense that a legislature must provide ''due process for 
 > the enforcement of law.'' 
  
 Alexander Hamilton founder of the Federalist Party. Was a 
 homosexual (bisexual)and€was a founding father, so much for 
 the founders would object to homosexuality. Here is a letter 
 between Hamilton to John Laurens: 
  
 Cold in my professions, warm in my friendships, I wish, my Dear 
 Laurens, it might be in my power, by action rather than words to 
 convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that 'til 
 you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my 
 heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. 
 You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is 
 my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, 
 and to keep my happiness independent of the caprice of others. 
 You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal 
 into my affections without my consent. But as you have done it, 
 and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall 
 not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on condition 
 that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue 
 to merit the partiality, which you have artfully instilled into me. 
 € 
 € 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)