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: Little Joe who wrote (28801)	2/10/2004 1:59:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793897

This means that if evidence or testimony was not provided by the lawyers who tried the case, the court can't consider it. While there are good reasons for this in cases where the court is not legislating, it is a horrible way to make societal decisions. That's a good point. No matter where you stand on the issue it is inconceviable to me that the court could find no rational basis, whether it agreed with it or not, upon which legislatures could withold approval of homosexual marriages. I agree with that. I'm already on record about that. I hardly think not approving homo-sexual marriage, especiallly given the history of marriage, amounts to "coming to get" homosexuals. I agree with that, too. I did not intend what you inferred. That piece was an explanation for my inclination to try to make sure that minorities are protected even when I have no stake in the particulars. I do, however, think that it is beyond cavalier to brush off the concerns of this group for equal access to benefits and I will argue for a fair hearing on that matter with my last breath. I really hate aggressively tin-eared majorities. P.S. No need to use my name twice in a post. I noticed last time that you finally got it... <g>