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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (37439)	2/15/2005 6:08:25 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Married people can avoid estate taxes through mechanisms such as a living trust. The tax benefits can be enormous - to married heterosexuals. Homosexual couples are at a disadvantage to married couples in child issues. For example, if the biological partner dies, the surviving partner has no rights in many states. Can you imagine how devastating it is for a child to realize that, because one parent dies, they'll be potentially taken away from the other? The issue with medical benefits is that if a company offers spousal benefits, it must extend that benefit to all full time employees within the group. However, it does not have to extend those benefits to same-sex couples. That is, there is no protection for same-sex partners to enjoy the same benefit as heterosexual married couples. Equal protection means that all laws are applied evenly. Originally intended to protect minorities from discriminatory laws, it applies to all citizens. A law cannot be passed that says, for example, pregnant women can't smoke because it may endanger their fetuses, although it is feasible to pass a law that bans all smoking. Similarly, benefits and privileges cannot be granted under the law to one group while excluding another; for example, you couldn't have a park that is limited to only women. Gay people are a subgroup of citizens who do not enjoy the same privileges as heterosexuals, specifically in their inability to marry and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. With regards to the legislative attempt to circumvent the doctrine of judicial nullification: if passed, the precedent would have tremendous impact. Can you imagine what would happen if every bill had a clause tacked on that said "This law is not subject to judicial review". Yes, I hope that more reasonable heads prevail. But seeing what has happened since 9/11, I'm not going to count on it...

To: one_less who wrote (37439)	2/16/2005 11:25:35 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I am going to try to clarify where we are at in this discussion Kevin. We agree that the members of any relationship should be entitled to constitutionally based ‘rights’ and constitutionally based ‘protections’ under the law. I would include in that large or extended family/households, that we would describe in America as ‘alternatives’. However, the terms ‘Gay Marriage’ and ‘Gay Rights’ are not synonymous. Rights for individuals and sub-groupings are guaranteed by the constitution. Where there are cracks in the legal system we can and should do the work to repair that. I think this is entirely do-able and see no reason to hesitate in getting the work started on it. However the 'Gay Marriage' issue is a barrier for either getting support from the left or the right wing in doing the work. ‘Gay Marriage’ implies a much broader social agenda. It includes issues for such things as gender crossing that we have a more difficult time discussing and alternative lifestyles that the American conscience is hard set against. In the case of gender-crossing, I just read a story about a little boy with three moms – two of which were born men. Where as, the American conscience has become softened toward discussions of gay issues, the piggy back issues waiting in the wings of the agenda are not discussible at this point. This defines the secret agenda behind either the right wing resistance or the left wing promotion of 'Gay Marriage' issues. I have pointed out the fundamental difference between gay families and hetero-families. It is: There is an obvious distinction in the underlying premise of a traditional heterosexual family that is likely to be founded on the notion of progeny and continuance of a family centered community. A center that has defined the society from which the individual came and that envisions a future. This model is juxtaposed with and counter to a more couple centered and one generational homosexual union that is not as likely to be focused on future generations that will continue its fundamental modeling in which the gay family is undertaking. You came back with an anecdotal comment about how you know several (gay) couples and they are exactly the same. That doesn’t have a resonant ring for some reason. Maybe you could clear this up for me?