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 (72141)	8/9/2003 7:59:18 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But is supporting actual constitutional privileges of states or opposing the imposition of homosexual marriage across the whole nation by judicial fiat and/or the legislature of one state, pandering to racists or "gay bashers"? You know, Tim, it was this constitutional amendment thing that really set me off. Before that I was pretty indifferent to gay marriage but it pushed me off the fence. In reflecting on why it has such an effect I come up with primarily the hypocrisy of it, hypocrisy being probably my primarily pet peeve in this world. While I can understand that well meaning people who simply place a higher value on traditional marriage than on fairness, where for me the converse is the case, may support this amendment, my utter disgust for the Republican politicians who are advocating it is visceral. The same guys who have been pounding their fists for states rights all these years suddenly want to impose something that is clearly a state function on the nation using the biggest hammer in our arsenal, the amendment, the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. As I stated in an earlier post to Neo, I could appreciate the call for an amendment to override the requirement that all states honor what one state does when it comes to marriage. But an amendment to preclude state variation on marriage from a bunch of states-righters seems to be such an in-your-face, full-bore assault that can only come from nuts, in this case the bigot variety of nut. I can respect the concern over one state imposing homosexual marriage and the concern over judicial fiat. But in my mind, considering the long-established reverence for states rights of the amendment proponents, I cannot find a way of viewing the push for an amendment that doesn't include a heaping dose of bigotry and mean-spiritedness. If the proposed amendment is changed as I suggested, I could chalk it up to a legitimate difference of opinion, but not as now formulated.

To: TimF who wrote (72141)	8/10/2003 6:50:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

One further thought on the subject of judicial fiat. Yeah, that's not a good thing. But a constitutional amendment is only marginally better. You can at least say that a constitutional amendment is a product of legislative action rather than judicial action. But the legislative action still usurps the proper role of the states in question. Seems to me that this matter is most appropriately dealt with state by state. Whenever you override that process, you get a backlash, which then begets a reverse backlash, and then the courts end up trumping everything anyway. I say let the states do their thing partly because it's the right thing to do and partly so we can see where the natural process takes us. If a handful of states legislate for civil unions for gays, is that really the end of the world? Is stopping that really worth abandoning principles re how our government works?