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: TimF who wrote (31455)	2/25/2004 7:00:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793707

which really only leaves you with amendments or accepting the arbitrary rule of judges. Don't you think it cavalier to the Constitution to not let the lower level give and take play out before bringing out the big guns? We have the Defense of Marriage Act currently in force. We still have appellate courts and the Supreme Court yet to weigh in. Don't we owe the Constitution enough respect to let it play out? It will play out just fine, you know.

To: TimF who wrote (31455)	2/25/2004 7:02:41 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793707

I hate to say it, but I agree with a part of Kerry's position on the issue, namely, that gay marriage should not be a federalized, Constitutional issue; the States can deal with it as they see fit. Traditionally, states have set the rules for the manner in which the status of persons is considered, i.e., when is an individual an adult, how old can persons be before they are allowed to marry, the degrees of consanguinity that is allowable before marriage will be prohibited, whether community property or some other method is the legal regime governing property acquired during marriage, and the like. The federal government generally does not intrude into these types of issues. I see very little difference between these matters and gay marriage. Making it a Constitutional issue is ridiculous. C2@butI'mstilllvotingforW.com

To: TimF who wrote (31455)	2/25/2004 7:58:40 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793707

TWF, Amending the constitution is fine but my own opinion is that it should not be used to set social policy which is always a work in progress. Look at prohibition. What worries me about a gay marriage ban is what happens when society is overwhelmingly ok with it(which i expect 10 years down the road) and we cant get rid of the prohibition because of a strong rt wing christian movement. If that had happened with booze, i would be in jail tonight for finishing off a bottle of wine. And after posting on this thread for the last week on this subject, kerry and mels movie, i wouldnt have made it tonight without that bottle. Mike