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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (17085)	11/21/2003 2:56:11 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793718

The whole gay marriage issue makes Democrats squirm. They needed it just now like a hole in the head. I don't think a court-appointed fiat redefining the parameters of marriage is doing gays any favors, either. It just invites a tremendous backlash. It is amazing to think that within the last 30 years homosexuality has moved from being regarded as a barely tolerated perversion to the subject of an equal rights campaign. I think the national consensus is coming around, on the grounds of a right to privacy (let consenting adults alone for private behavior) and a right to equality (let homosexual partnerships be legally recognized so that partners can collect insurance, take care of each other in age and sickness, and even, so they can adopt kids). But moving right now to redefine marriage, a public building block of society which most people participate in, is pushing too far too fast, imo. Society needs some time to adjust to such ideas. Civil unions, which seem to be going okay in Vermont, strike me as a good compromise idea, since they will give the needed benefits without redefining civil marriage. Besides which, gay marriage is going to reopen the whole polygamy question. Between the Mormons and the Muslims, there are a lot of people in this country who would like to make plural marriages - do you think they aren't paying attention to the gay marriage issue? The danger to Republicans is that they will be overeager to seize the issue, and repeat their culture wars 1992 convention. Handled right, they should be able to hit this one out of the park, certainly in all the red states. Democrats have just been handed a big domestic issue on which they must squirm and make fine distinctions - to go along with the big foreign issue - Iraq - on which they are already doing so. They must all be thanking the Massachusetts SJC very much.