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: Dayuhan who wrote (28156)	2/6/2004 2:51:40 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

but hardly grounds for the government to intrude on their management of their own lives. The government is not intruding on the management of their lives. They are asking for the State to change contractual regulations to accomodate THEM, while the majority of the population firmly opposes. We don't have any specifically guaranteed right to eat hamburgers, either. That doesn't mean that legislation outlawing the consumption of hamburgers would be constitutional. Why not? What Constitutional violation would that entail, exactly? You can't eat dogs and cats by law in most (if not all) jurisdictions. No "nuance" tonight, Steven? <g> Derek

To: Dayuhan who wrote (28156)	2/6/2004 8:29:58 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

Woulbe polygamists are also controversial despite not being queers. It's only controversial because the people trying to assert their right to manage their lives as they see fit are <horrified gasp> queer.