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: TimF who wrote (71367)	8/3/2003 1:08:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I, perhaps mistakenly, thought you had accepted the distinction between active abuse and passively allowing a unequal condition to exist. I see the distinction. I also see that, whether the deprivation is active or passive, the party is equally victimized. I don't think you can justify unfair treatment on the basis that is is passive, not active. You may be on a tad firmer moral ground tolerating passive unfairness than active unfairness, but it's still unfair. What action are you talking about that makes the state a party to excluding who? If estate tax or government health benefits or survivor benefits or any other kind of benefit is awarded only to marrieds, and if gay couples aren't permitted to marry, then they are being unfairly excluded, IMO, unless there is some reason to exclude them other than that they are gay. As I said, I'm not "actively" <g> pursuing changing the laws to let gays marry because I appreciate the significance of the terminology and the traditional institution, but I do think we need to do correct the unequal treatment. It's wrong, IMO. Alternatives other than opening up marriage to gays should be discussed, although I wouldn't rule that one out. I think it would be preferable to the status quo, from the standpoint of my hierarchy of values, that is.