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 (31357)	2/25/2004 10:18:28 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 793690

I was watching the Jay Leno show several weeks ago. I'm rarely awake at that hour. I remember one of his monologue jokes. It went something like this: Leno: I've heard that gays and lesbians want the right to marry. Pause for effect. Leno: Now why would a gay want to marry a lesbian.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31357)	2/25/2004 10:20:47 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

Re debasing the const. You cant debase the const by trying to use the amendment proceedure. Thats what its there for. And this is regardless of ones view on any particular issue. Personally prohibition amendemnt and its repeal point out the pitfalls, not of the process but of the outcome. If this amendment gets passed (10% chance at best), how difficult will it be to get it repealed in 25 years when their is overwhelming support for gay marriage(perhaps)? The rt wing christian opposition may make that harder than it was to repeal prohibition. Thats what i worry about. mike

To: Lane3 who wrote (31357)	2/25/2004 10:22:35 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

This is just a bit of election year pandering by Bush. As Cobalt Blue pointed out, the SCOTUS has not granted gays protected class status, so a state will only have to show a rational basis for forbidding gay marriage, a very easy standard to meet. With respect to Massachusetts, the citizens of that state are perfectly free to amend their state consitution to forbid gay marriage. Bush is proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, in six months nobody will even remember his proposal.

To: Lane3 who wrote (31357)	2/25/2004 10:24:05 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793690

Post editorial Wrong Court, Wrong Time Wednesday, February 25, 2004; Page A24 PALESTINIANS have good reasons to object to the security barrier Israel is constructing in the West Bank. Though the border-like combination of fences and walls is a legitimate response to terrorist attacks, Israel has chosen a route that would allow it to unilaterally swallow pieces of the West Bank and isolate or surround tens of thousands of Palestinians. As so often in the past, however, the Palestinian leadership has chosen to press its cause not with potentially productive steps -- such as a crackdown on terrorists and the renewal of negotiations with Israel -- but with pointless and inflammatory grandstanding before irrelevant international bodies. The Palestinian appeal this week to The Hague-based International Court of Justice, supported by such allies as Algeria and Cuba, is aimed at winning an advisory opinion declaring the security barrier illegal and, in the Palestinians' dreams, triggering an international sanctions campaign against Israel. In reality the case, shunned by the United States, the European Union and almost all the rest of the non-Muslim world, will prove no more successful than previous attempts to sanction or delegitimize the Jewish state. Instead it will probably reinforce the prevailing conviction in the Israeli and U.S. governments that the Palestinian administration is incapable of participating in a constructive peace process under its current leadership. Rather than isolate Israel, the case is isolating the Palestinians from the real action in the Middle East -- and at a crucial moment. While Palestinian lawyers have been drawing up speeches for delivery in the Netherlands, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and the Bush administration have been quietly negotiating the terms of a momentous initiative that would transform the situation on the ground. Mr. Sharon proposes to couple Israel's fence construction with the unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, along with an unspecified number from the West Bank. At the same time, he would reinforce some large Israeli settlement blocs. The end result would be an Israeli-imposed "long-term interim settlement" -- the same result Mr. Sharon previously offered for the outcome of peace negotiations. Instead of working out the terms with the Palestinians, Mr. Sharon now bargains with the White House -- and seeks in exchange a formal U.S. endorsement of the Israeli initiative and a commitment to back it both diplomatically and, possibly, financially. Wary at first, the Bush administration has steadily warmed to Mr. Sharon's idea and is giving it serious consideration. It's possible that unilateral Israeli steps, while failing to deliver a peace, could substantially improve the situation if they involved a major withdrawal of soldiers and settlers and improved defenses against terrorist attacks. They might even open the way to a Palestinian state. But much depends on what form the initiative takes and in particular where Israel's proto-border is constructed. U.S. officials rightly believe that Palestinians must somehow be involved in the emerging process. Once they finish posturing before an international court with no power over Israel or its actions, Palestinian leaders would do well to think about how they can have an influence on the real decisions about to be made -- before it is too late.