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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (194374)	7/15/2004 9:03:01 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574505

But amending the Constitution to avert that speculative possibility is like buying fire insurance for a house that no one expects to be built. It takes a long time to amend the constitution. Its not like buying fire insurance for a house that no one expects to be built. Its like buying fire insurance despite the fact that the existing house might not catch fire. There is no compelling reason to think the Supreme Court will invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act or the power of state governments to make their own choices about same-sex unions. Its quite possible that an amendment will be required to keep marriage a province of the states. Of course the amendment could reach less far then this one does. It could specifically not require the federal government or any state government to recognize same sex marriages while allowing those that do want such marriages to have them. Of course that leads the confusing jumble where people are married in one state but not considered married when they move to another. Or married under state law but not able to get federal recognition of their marriage. Tim