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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (14345)	7/14/2004 1:33:29 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Agreed. The Constitution isn't the place for this. Leave it up to states with the option of one state not recognizing some marriages of another if their panties really get in a twist about it.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (14345)	7/14/2004 1:43:16 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

A constitutional amendment is absurd. My opinion is that "marriage" is church business. You want the church's blessing, go get it. The state should be involved in the partnership contract. In which case, gender isn't a factor in the contract. As far as the founding fathers giving gays rights in the constitution, the US constitution is about defining/restricting the powers of the gov't, not restricting the rights of the people. The right is assumed if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. If the state is going to be in the business of "marriage, then they shouldn't be discriminating for any reason. imo

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (14345)	7/14/2004 5:07:34 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

I'm not in favor of amending the Constitution every time a "hot button" item comes up. It's an important document, and should not be tinkered with.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (14345)	7/15/2004 3:21:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

It's simplistic to say that states should not place limits on legal marriages. Should a 45-year-old be allowed to marry a 6-year-old? (Yeah, I know, there's another issue there: marriage is a contract and USUALLY minors can't make valid contracts. Except when they can.) Or should you be allowed to marry your mother? The state's in the business, like it or not. The question is where the line is drawn. It has and had been thought that valid marriage should be limited to persons of opposite sex. That may be changing, although slowly and very grudgingly. If it does and gay marriage is legalized, I somehow doubt the United States of America will immediately collapse and join the third world.