Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17553)	4/25/2000 5:47:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 769670

<<...a prayer a day and commandments on the wall isn't going to make any difference at all.>> When people move closer to a fire they are warmed by it and it has a significant impact on them. When it remains at a distance it is an abstract phenomena and has no effect on them. The attempt to bring religious awareness into the mainstream is an attempt at warming the culture. Again, not a cure all. I agree with you that the greatest impact is typically from the home.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17553)	4/25/2000 9:35:00 PM
From: Colleen M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<I don't doubt it. But they learned that respect - along with respect for their fellow people, which is perhaps more to the point - at home, and if they haven't learned it by the time they enter school, a prayer a day and commandments on the wall isn't going to make any difference at all.>> That may be so. But children need to learn respect at home and at school. Maybe a prayer a day and commandments on the wall isn't going to make any difference at all, but OTOH maybe it would? I don't think either you or I are in a position to decide whether this would definitely work or definitely not work. It may work in some cases and not in others. My point is that I don't think abolishing religion is going to solve the problems our country is facing.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (17553)	4/26/2000 1:48:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Steven, article...liberals taking "control" and "forcing" their cultural will once again. Vermont Votes 'Civil Unions' Into Law By Lawrence Morahan CNS Staff Writer 25 April, 2000 cnsnews.com\Culture\archive\CUL20000425f.html Montpelier, VT (CNSNews.com) - Against the wishes of the majority of Vermonters, its state legislature Tuesday voted to grant same sex couples the equivalent rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples in a bill that will have far reaching implications across America, even in states that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. During non-binding town hall meetings in March, a majority of Vermont's voters rejected the idea of homosexual unions by margins of up to 3-1. The "civil unions" bill, which passed by 79-68 in a bitterly divided legislature, is almost identical to a bill that passed in the Vermont house March 16 by 76-69. The legislation will enable same sex couples to legally demand that their civil union be accepted in other states much as they can their driver's license. In states such as California, where residents recently voted to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman in Proposition 22, the law may very well require homosexual couple's civil unions be recognized since they are not called a marriage. The original bill was amended slightly by the state senate and approved by that body April 19 by 19-11 vote. Both bodies passed the law largely along party lines. A significant difference between the bills is that the law will go into effect July 1 instead of September 1 as proposed in the original. The measure now goes to the desk of Governor Howard Dean (D), who said he will sign it into law. Tuesday's vote followed an emotional debate in the House legislature - with Civil Union supporters wearing pink stickers and opponents sporting white ribbons - packed the visitor's gallery as legislators spoke of the deep rifts that this debate has brought to Vermont. The final bill did not include an amendment that would have required state residency for the granting of civil unions, which means that out-of-staters now can have their civil union performed in Vermont and asked that it be recognized in their state of residency.