SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (28151)2/6/2004 2:35:41 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (3) of 793840
 

it is a Political decision, and not one that the Courts should be making

Why not? It's about as fundamental as issues get. You should have the right to manage your life as you see fit, as long as you don't intrude on anybody else's rights. If somebody tries to deny you the right to manage your life as you see fit on any other grounds, you seek redress in the courts. That's what courts are for.

It's only controversial because the people trying to assert their right to manage their lives as they see fit are <horrified gasp> queer. Not something of which many approve - I think it's a little bizarre myself - but hardly grounds for the government to intrude on their management of their own lives.

We don't have any "right" to Marriage under the Constitution

We don't have any specifically guaranteed right to eat hamburgers, either. That doesn't mean that legislation outlawing the consumption of hamburgers would be constitutional.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News