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 (28731)	2/10/2004 5:19:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793689

Prof. Bainbridge on the FMA: My colleague Steve Bainbridge writes: [Eugene Volokh, 2/9/2004 10:05:07 PM] . . . I would like to see Bush turn the debate fully to the "who decides" question. Instead of talking about the sanctity of marriage (which heterosexuals like Britney Spears are doing a pretty good job of destroying without help), Bush should focus the debate on judicial activism. How to do this? Revise the FMA so as to leave the definition of marriage to the state legislatures, while not requiring other states (or the federal government) to accept another state's definition. Then let the chips fall where they may. The idea is to allow representative democracy to work out the answer on a state by state basis without courts using either equal protection or the Full Faith and Credit clause to impose a national regime before the national population (not just metropolitan elites) have reached consensus. A very narrowly tailored FMA would not require one jurisdiction to honor the definition of marriage used by another state. If Massachusetts decides to validate gay marriages and a gay couple got married in Massachusetts and then move to Alabama, Alabama would not have to treat them as being married. Arguably, Alabama already would not have to do so, because the FF&C clause has a public policy exception. It is sharply contested, however, whether the public policy exception would be applied to allow states to decline to recognize gay marriages lawful under the law of the state where the marriage occured. This has become a particularly debatable proposition after the decision last term in Lawrence. Hence, the suggestion to offer a very narrowly tailored FMA to allow each jurisdiction to decide for itself what will constitute a legal marriage under its laws, without having to defer to the definition used by the locus of the marriage ceremony. . . . I agree entirely.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (28731)	2/10/2004 10:41:58 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

OK - I have no idea whether you're right or not about the British pound at that era in history, but I understand the general principle of outsiders buying up lots of land on the cheap, e.g., the Dutch buying Manhattan, New Yorkers buying Miami, dotcommers buying up California bungalows. Whether it's the exchange rate or liquidity or simple wealth, the outsiders bought land and therefore . . . . what? The Jews didn't steal the land we're talking about, they bought it. The people who sold it to them weren't as naive as the Indians who sold Manhattan to the Dutch, nor did they make bad bargains. They're advanced enough in civilization to have the concept of a deal being a deal. In fact, the Palestinian Arabs are masters of the art of the deal themselves. So, I just don't see where this argument is going to get you legally, factually or morally. If the only point you're trying to make is that the transactions were resented, even so, nobody put a gun to the seller's heads.