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: TimF who wrote (87108)	11/22/2004 11:16:51 PM
From: Dayuhan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793615

there is public support for marriages as well. I don’t think public support for same-sex marriages is any worse than public support for childless marriages. I don’t see any reason for the public to support any couple that doesn’t have children. The answer to that problem is not to ban same-sex marriage, but to end public support for childless couples. I have no problem with systems and incentives designed to support parenthood, but there is no reason to support childless couples. Let them support themselves. If there is a strong reason for a change in the law then it should be argued for that reason. The reason is that if someone wants to do something, they should be allowed to do it unless they infringe upon the rights of others in the process. That’s the basis of a free society, and that seems a fairly compelling argument to me. Are we a free country, or are we not? If freedom only extends to those liberties the majority likes, we’re not free. I would oppose any attempt to push such a social change through by court action. One of the primary functions of the courts is to prevent the majority from placing unwarranted restrictions on the liberties of a minority. I see no reason why the courts should not fulfill that function.