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: carranza2 who wrote (31465)	2/25/2004 7:40:01 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793712

I see very little difference between these matters and gay marriage. What I want to know is how two gays decide who wears the wedding gown.

To: carranza2 who wrote (31465)	2/25/2004 7:45:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793712

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. Its possible that a federal constitutional amendment would be needed to get what you want (that the states deal with it as they see fit). Tim

To: carranza2 who wrote (31465)	2/25/2004 7:51:46 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793712

Will it be a state govt issue or a court issue. California voted against gay marriage and the mayor of SF allows it. Off to the courts. And then there is the federal court to ulitimately decided the congress passed defense of marriage act. And some tin horn court got this all going in massechusets, antother state that was against it. Mike PS i am against the amendment route as well but not happy about activist courts at all. Civil unions were coming along very nicely and the culture was adapting quickly. Remember how homophobic most men were just a few short years ago.