The Boxing Ring Revived Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (6626)	6/30/2003 5:32:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) of 7720

This is the very first news item I read this morning. Gave me a headache trying to find the logic in it. He totally contradicted himself, seems to me. <<Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week." "And I'm thinking of - whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home - ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern." <snip> >> Like huh? Whether it is the courts or the legislature that is defining what one can or cannot do in one's home, seems to me that the impact on privacy is the same. If the courts permit me to do something in my home that Frist doesn't approve of, that increases my privacy and has absolutely zero impact on his, seems to me. Perhaps I misunderstand his words about us all wanting privacy? It looks to me like he's anti-privacy.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next