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: Lane3 who wrote (28459)	2/8/2004 3:13:38 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794490

"I think he's spot on regarding the word, marriage. The word is important. The gay marriage advocates should concede the word forthwith." I agree. How many times in your life have you heard the words "Holy Matrimony"? How often have you heard the words "church wedding"? Separation of church and state is important. But marriage is an issue where church and state are entwined. Marriage is a legal relationship, but it is also, to tens of millions of Americans, a relationship with God. And many of these persons feel that homosexuality is an abomination. So I think that in this case, the gay community should leave well enough alone. Learn to pick your fights.

To: Lane3 who wrote (28459)	2/8/2004 5:35:30 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794490

When judges legislate, amending the constitution is the only way for the people to express its will. On the other side, amending the Constitution is outrageously extreme, as well. Here's another option. Pass a resolution expressing the will of the legislature saying that they agree with 3 out of 7 judges, treat the 4's opinion as a suggestion, and do nothing.

To: Lane3 who wrote (28459)	2/8/2004 7:21:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794490

If marriage is going to be religious (because of its sacred significance), than the state should have nothing to do with it. Call formal legal unions something else, and let churches marry whom they will. I suspect many churches would marry gays- but at least the churches could duke it out amongst themselves, and we could have a rational way to treat all people equally before the law. The present system makes a mockery of marriage anyway- those straight divorce rates are something else. Clearly marriage doesn't mean much to a lot of straight people, and the idea that gays will ruin the whole thing is ludicrous, but if the folks who have an emotional attachment to marriage need a bone, I say give 'em the word, but make sure the legal rights meted out by the government are available to all.