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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7392)	3/2/2004 3:11:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

F DOMA isn't found unconstitutional. That will take some time. Time is what this needs to sort itself out. If it is found unconstitutional, by then we will have some experience with this thing and likely a more thoughtful approach to an amendment, if needed. Wow. So you're saying that if couples get married in California in 2004, files taxes as married, is rejected, sues under the 14th Amendment, and in 2009 the USSC decides that DOMA is unconstitutional and that the federal government has to recognize the California marriages, THEN is the time to consider a Constitutional Amendment, when ther may be thousands or tens of thousands of gay couples who meanwhile are quickly filing amended tax returns or are finally getting their tax returns accepted? Talk about putting the horse back in the barn. Wow. That's hardly a scenario I would look forward to as a politician. I think this issue needs to be settled quickly and definitively. And the only two options are either to go ahead and accept gay marriage federally, or pass a constitutional amendment as soon as possible and close any loopholes that may now exist.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7392)	3/2/2004 3:13:34 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

And we don't now have complications with lesbian couples and children? Sure we do. And different states handle it very differently. Which is not the best thing for children. Who have no rights to vote for anybody or have any say in what they want. While the same, you'll say, is true for the states, we do have a quite well defined process of what happens to children of marriage, and while it varies somewhat from state to state, the SC has determined that parents have certain constitutional rights. That's not true with gay couples. And, as usual, it's the children who suffer.