Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices 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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (195037)	8/3/2004 8:37:58 PM
From: TimF	of 1575863

Maybe the judges "went along" as you put it because there is no legal reason to prevent gay marriages. Statue law in most cases doesn't allow for it. The constitution doesn't even mention it. If not having gay marriage is an injustice then it would be one that should be handled by legislation. If instead its an issue that shouldn't be fought now, then neither side should fight it. I understand that concept but the right has a habit of fighting for things that dramatically effect the behaviors of others which have little bearing on their own lives. No more so then the left. On this specific case there was no attempt from the right to impose a change of behavior on the left. We aren't talking about anti-sodomy laws being used against gays (which I have been against, and which have been struck down by the supreme court). Its the left in this case that is trying to effect the behaviors of others. What I am saying is that in the matter of weeks the right went from objecting to gay marriage to starting legislation in order to establish a constitutional amendment. That'a big step in a short period of time. How do we know it wasn't premeditated? It wasn't a matter of weeks, more like many months. I find that an extreme response to something that doesn't effect the complainants at all. And their response is a bit unusual....since I believe this constitutional amendment would have been the first to restrict the freedoms of Americans rather than expand them. The ammendment isn't imposing a restriction on the behavior of individuals. It is proposing rather that the state will not be required to give any special recognition to this behavior. They may not be "ramming it down" your throat for the hell of it. It may be that the law allows gay marriage whether the majority agrees or does not agree. If so, it will not be the first time in this country that the majority do not agree with what the law allows. Its why we have judges! The law allows for nothing of the sort. The judges take their duty to interpret law beyond its bounds and instead try to create law. Huh? It restricts gays from the rights enjoyed by straight people. There is a definite restriction. Gays can have sex, they can live together, and do all sorts of other things. The proposed change is not to allow them to do more but to compell the state to provide them recognition and support. In the late twenties, they did not start by killing; that came much later. In the beginning, they simply restricted their lives in a number of ways....both violently and non violently. To the Germans credit, some tried to some him but it was too little too late. Again - none of which is anything like what Bush, or the Republican party is doing at this time, or have done in the past, or shows any sign of doing in the future. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next