SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (496045)11/20/2003 1:57:00 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
If they want to keep use of the word 'marriage' for just hetero relationships, that's fine by me.

I think that separate but equal was already struck down by the courts. They didn't want two drinking fountains, one labeled colored and the other white.

I don't see why two different names for the same rights protects anyone. Civil partners will have all the rights of married partners. So why have two separate names for a union between two people?

Orca



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (496045)11/20/2003 4:59:08 PM
From: Tech Master  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
MA's courts are attempting to legitimize deviant gay sexual behavior through marriage. However you try to spin it, homosexuality is biologically unnatural and morally perverse.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News