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: Elroy who wrote (210888)	11/6/2004 12:57:13 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571815

More UN hypocrisy. China recently signed a massive oil development project in Iran (those Chinese need fuel!), and they also oppose having the Security Council discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions. When the UN can be bought out, what good is it? Especially when the world's main terrorist trouble region is also the location with the world's largest oil deposits. TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- China will oppose any effort to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over the issue of Tehran's nuclear program, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Saturday. cnn.com "I also told these colleagues that, to my knowledge, Iran is having a pretty good cooperation with the IAEA," he said.

To: Elroy who wrote (210888)	11/6/2004 1:08:09 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571815

So what is the difference between "marriage" and "civil union", other than the different words used to describe them? I believe most people are complaining about the fact that the Left (including liberal homosexuals) are tyring to redefine a term that has been used for centuries with a particular meaning. I have no problem with the term "civil union". And I have no problem with gays having civil unions, with certain consequences. But when you define marriage to encompass "civil unions", you change, with one stroke of the pen, volumes of established law, both state and federal. Much of the law surrounding marriages (e.g., community property) stems from the Common Law. When you redefine "marriage" to include civil unions, there are likely to be innumerable unintended consequences. A far better, and more acceptable approach, is to define "civil union", then to codify precisely what that means in the context of marriage. Did Congress intend to change property rights at death, or should we let the courts decide? Did Congress intend to allow access to medical records, or should the courts decide? What constitutes a "civil union"? We've had marriage for centuries and there are STILL definitional issues that arise all the time, depending on what state someone is in. There is a TON of state and dependent federal law that would, overnight, become ambiguous as states redefine "marriage". It is stupid. Words mean things. Let's keep it that way. Calling a civil union a "marriage" is about as broad a redefinition of a term as one can imagine. It is not automatically a religious issue for many people (me included). It is really a matter of practicality.