Politics for Pros- moderated 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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (31366)	2/25/2004 10:45:26 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) of 794373

Frankly if an amendement was what they wanted, i think that the admin should have supported an amendment to constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage act, dealing with the roaming bands of gay marrieds looking to test the law in all jurisdictions. But if he had done that he would have appeared to weak to the evangys. By the way, i heard a talking head suggest that congress need only repass defense of marriage with a proviso that the SC could not rule on it. Is that legal? Mike PS have been arguing with my daughter on this issue. she thinks its the biggest issue since sliced bread. She cant believe that i am so ambivalent on it. But in my argument to her i said look at all the progress gays have made in only the last 10 years. It is almost revolutionary. My idea was that it would be nice if moderate voices in the gay community who know this to be true, came out and said so and worked a compromise with their well wishers who may be for civil unions and not marriage just yet. Yet Mass and a couple of other states be the lab for gay marriage but no roving bands of gays testing the laws for a stated period of time.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next