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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (6638)	6/30/2003 8:13:14 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I wasn't taking exception to his desire to ban gay marriage, only the sheer audacity of his suggesting that his POV was somehow pro-privacy. You can't be both pro-privacy and pro criminalizing private sexual activity between consenting adults. As far as gay marriages are concerned, I can see both sides. I can't get exercised about the issue one way or the other. I agree that it's mostly a practical issue about insurance benefits and estate tax benefits. If they do away with the estate tax, that part will be moot. Many employers are offering health insurance benefits to significant others now so that may not be as much of a practical issue in the future. Most of the problems can be dealt with using standard legal documents like wills, medical powers of attorney, and the like. It still matters in government benefits, though, and that would be a huge fight. Looking at the issue from the perspective of principle rather than practicality, well, that's complicated. Seems to me if Frish and company were being strategic rather than idealogues, they'd concede the practical parts of the issue and quit rousting people for their sexual habits and quit opposing companies offering health benefits. If they concede those, then the argument for marriage between gays would be reduced and they'd have an easier time holding the line on marriage. Seems to me.