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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment.

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1127)8/22/2006 1:36:41 AM
From: epicureRead Replies (2) of 1695
 
Only because the supreme court has not declared it a fundamental right. But I think they could easily do that, and a different court probably would do that. And they could easily declare gay people to be a protected class. I think gays should be a protected class and marriage should be defined as a fundamental right.

I agree with this judge:

seattletimes.nwsource.com

I understand that people want to keep gays out of marriage, but I don't approve. I think discrimination is wrong except in cases where a really decent argument can be made in favor of the discrimination. It needs to be a better argument than "We've always discriminated", or "Their marrying makes us uncomfortable", or "It's against my religion", or "The majority wants to discriminate."

I wouldn't approve of any of those reasons if they were applied to bar disabled people from marrying, or any ethnic minority, or sterile people, or people with genetic problems that might be passed on to their children, or any other adult subgroup I can think of. Discrimination is almost always per se wrong. For me it takes a great deal of evidence to overcome the presumption against discrimination- when the government is involved, as it is here.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext