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: TimF who wrote (224275)	3/16/2005 1:41:43 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571076

Separate but equal is a restriction of freedom and not democratic. It may be unjust, but it is not necessarily a restriction on freedom, and if the majority votes it in it isn't undemocratic. Of course, its a restriction.....others are allowed what some are not. And it is unconstitutional even if everyone but the minority approves of it. Since the Constitution defines our democracy, it also is undemocratic. And this isn't a normal case of "separate but equal" anyway. The law applies the same way to each individual. There isn't a separate law of gay people and heterosexuals. Both of them can marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals can argue that the law doesn't server them well and should be changed, but it isn't a different law for different people, nor is it a restriction of freedom, or undemocratic, or unconstitutional. Whether or not it is unjust is something that people will have different opinions about. It is separate but equal....one set of rules for one group, another set for another group. Blacks go in one door....whites in another. Judges are supposed to insure that laws are constitutional. It would be nice if they would really focus on that, and consider themselves limited to that. Well not totally to that they also interpret non-constitutional law, but they should try to interpret the law itself not impose their opinion of what the law should be. If they want to do that they should have become politicians instead of judges. Your argument is ridiculous.....absolutely ridiculous and clearly shows the heavy bias under which you operate. If a judge uses opinion as the basis for his/her ruling as opposed to constitutionality, then his/her ruling will be thrown out upon appeal. " You argue that allowing same sex marriage is what is right. You also argue that it is what CA's constitution allows for. The problem is that even if you are correct on both of those issues (and they could both be argued) that would not say anything about the concept of democracy. If you want to argue about democracy that make your argument about democracy. As it is your again showing the logical fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion" intrepidsoftware.com You argue about one thing and then claim to have shown something else." See above. You've lost me. Its very simple, but I'll rephrase it for you. You make an argument that not allowing same sex marriage is wrong, and you make an argument that it is unconstitutional, and then you act as if these arguments showed it to be undemocratic. But undemocratic is not the same thing as being unconstitutional. So even if you were correct in your actual arguments you haven't supported your original contention about how not having legal same sex marriage is undemocratic. In the purest sense of the word, it is not undemocratic. However, the American Constitution defines the American democracy. Therefore, if you violate the Constitution, you are violating the democracy. ted