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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (2728)	6/27/2003 1:17:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793891

I'm waiting for the next Utah bigamy case to throw it in their faces. The states have the right to write laws about the marriage contract. This decision really dented that concept. If you can't regulate "privacy", then incest, etc, is ok. But you know they won't let that, or bigamy, go on. Just makes a further mess of Constitutional law.

To: D. Long who wrote (2728)	6/27/2003 8:23:20 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793891

Scalia's dissenting opinion is its own self ridicule. Taking sides in the culture wars, my foot. He apparently doesn't see his own self ridicule since he's the one taking sides. The court simply declared that, surprise, when it comes to privacy, straights and gays should have the same rights. No, I'm not simply taking O'Connor's argument. That was clearly the case with the Kennedy opinion as well. Something good, every once in a great while, happens in Bush's America. Damn rare.