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: The Philosopher who wrote (6650)	6/30/2003 7:21:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

their clear agenda was to work toward full and equal marital rights with heterosexual couples. They realized that this would take time, I don't doubt that. The question is whether or not that's how things will play out. The impetus is from the rights groups. They are the true believers. The rest of the gay and lesbian population and the straight population who either support or are not averse to this outcome are the ones who make change happen. We still need majorities to change laws. Most of us of good will want to see the practical problems removed or are willing to have them removed. That is happening gradually. As that occurs, the momentum for equality in marriage will fade and it will be only the true believers who continue to carry the banner. Much like affirmative action has faded over time. The average person can work up some outrage over "no colored need apply" and dying people not able to have lifelong partners at their sides making decisions for them. Once those problems are dealt with informally, the energy of those other than the true believers for such a dramatic change as gay marriage will dissipate. That's why I think it would be smart for Frist and company to give on the matter of health benefits and the like because that takes a lot of the steam out of the movement. Personally, I think we should remove all the distinctions between married and unmarried persons. That would get rid of the problem right quick. And it would be fairer, to boot. No reason why a spouse should be able to inherit tax free while the survivor of a pair of spinster sisters can't. But then, we've discussed this before.