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

To: Neocon who wrote (537975)	2/10/2004 11:21:41 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Reasonable. However, states must be careful when choosing conditions on marriage. Close cousins, incest, etc have medical reasons for exclusion. Remember, it was not too long ago when interracial marriages were illegal, which today seems almost unfathomable. To choose those exclusions based on a moral, and not legal or medical basis, invites stepping over the equal protection line. As far as civil unions, I agree that this may be a good compromise. But then, what will the difference (legally) be between the civil unions and marriage? Do couples in these same sex civil unions enjoy all the same rights as marriage? Inheritance? Adoption rights? Insurance? If so, is the difference only in the name? To hold 'marriage' as different from 'civil union', legally, there must be some tangible difference, no? And to 'take it in stages' sounds too much like the civil rights struggle. Aren't we past that? What's next, separate but equal? Btw: I think the NY homosexual high school is a step backwards for the gay cause.