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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71353)	8/3/2003 12:29:50 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I get the fine distinction he is making. But I don't buy that we should let the state hand out benefits, that we ALL pay for, to only a few, strictly on the basis of their gender (meaning the marriage benefit, to those of different genders, and not to those of the same genders). It costs money to run the offices that deal with marriage licenses, a judge paid for by the state officiates, and it is not equal treatment under the law to tax homosexuals, and then deny them access to the benefits of the system they pay for. When you see unequal treatment, you have to ask yourself "Is there a compelling reason for this unequal treatment?". In this case we have 1.yuck 2. custom and 3.religion. None of those, imo, is compelling enough to obviate the necessity for equal treatment under the law, in our secular country. Three cheers for the people not out beating up homosexuals on the weekends, but that doesn't clear from all responsibility the people who would leave injustice in the laws in place, because of their more mildly acted out prejudices.