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: Lane3 who wrote (6639)	6/30/2003 8:42:22 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 7720

I agree, it's hard to reconcile his position with being pro-privacy. Impossible, really. I think a lot of conservatives are flummoxed over this one. But strategically it plays well. Hard for the Democrats to rail against an extremist court in 2004...

To: Lane3 who wrote (6639)	6/30/2003 1:26:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I have a bit of a different take on the issue of homsexuals and marriage, since I represented a party involved in a relationship that the other party wantedto have declared a meritricious relationship (which is as close to marriage as homosexuals can come). (The term gay is too limited, since it usually applies to male couples, not to all couples, though I understand it is common shorthand, sort of like using "man" as a generic term for "person.") As a result of that case, I got fairly well acquainted with the gay and lesbian rights groups and their agendas at the time, which was a few years ago. At that time, and I am not aware of any change, their clear agenda was to work toward full and equal marital rights with heterosexual couples. They realized that this would take time, and had a strategy of creeping up on it with initial focus on issues that a) were more pragmatic than symbolic, such as insurance, inheritance, adoption, and b) would be more likely to generate public support. But the strategy was, and as far as I know still is, to gradually move toward full marital rights so that marriage would be redefined as a relationship between two people, not between a man and a woman. They realized this would take time, but that was the clear goal. Since the case I was involved in was seen by them as a potentially valuable precedent setting case for a small move toward that goal, I did have some significant discussions with more than one major g&l group, and found this to be the consistent approach. As it turned out, my case settled without a court decision, so we didn't get to the point of a precedential ruling. But the ultimate goal, and the strategic objectives they saw as being necessary to achieve that goal, were quite clear.