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 (2731)	6/27/2003 5:02:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793903

Daily Brickbat Absurd news bites, served fresh every day. By Charles Oliver Ohio Blows $346.5 Mil (6/26) A Cincinnati Enquirer investigation found that state contractors and public agencies have misspent more than $346.5 million of Ohio taxpayers' money since 2000. A Toledo company that was supposed to care for foster children, for instance, spent $750,000 on a Mercedes-Benz, plastic surgery, health club dues, and stocks. A Cleveland Head Start agency collected more than $2.2 million in tax money for 600 children who didn't exist. And in Cincinnati, a Medicaid firm charged taxpayers nearly $6,000 to care for 22 people who already had died. Even worse, the report found, state officials don't seem to be very interested in reclaiming the money, even after the abuse is uncovered.

To: D. Long who wrote (2731)	6/27/2003 6:29:44 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

I was watching "Charlie Rose" tonight. Was astounded when two of the participants said that they were in New York, and that their opinion probably did not reflect flyover country. The consensus seemed to be that the American Public was for leaving people to lead their lives as they saw fit, but the country is not ready to recognize gay marriage. I think they are right. So the push that is going to come from the Gay community to legalize their unions is going to backfire, IMO. It will energize the right, and hurt the left. The column I posted earlier on Religion in Politics in this country is very revealing on this type of subject. Sullivan's blog shows how this will play out in the Homosexual community. >>>SCALIA'S INSIGHT: But he's right about one thing. Once you acknowledge the dignity of gays as a social class, once you have conceded that their private sexual and emotional lives cannot be reduced to a single sexual act, once you have made the law equal with respect to the private sex lives of heteros and homos, the logic of same-sex marriage becomes hard to resist: This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O'Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. But preserving the traditional institution of marriage is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Of course, that precise moral disapproval of same-sex couples - not sex acts, mind you, but couples - is precisely the "morality" that Scalia purports to uphold. It isn't a reasonable morality, since it allows the "sin" of sodomy for the vast majority of people but denies it only to people who have no non-sodomitic option in their sex lives. It's a system of social stigmatization that has its own circular, prejudiced rationale. But getting rid of that incoherent prejudice does make marriage the obvious next step: Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for pruposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense at neutrality) "when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring"; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "the liberty protected under the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, sinnce the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of the Court.Precisely. Equality under the law means something. And now, it inescapably means the right to marry - for all citizens and not just those with power.<<<<< andrewsullivan.com