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: tejek who wrote (224366)	3/16/2005 5:17:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571153

Of course, its a restriction.....others are allowed what some are not. The only restriction is on state and local governments who are not allowed to recognize the union as a marriage. And it is unconstitutional even if everyone but the minority approves of it. Please quote the part of the constitution that makes restrictions on same ex marriage unconstitutional. Actually if your talking about the attempt to amend the constitution it wouldn't be unconstitutional even if the constitution explicitly allowed for same-sex marriages. A constitutional amendment changes the constitution. The only way it can be unconstitutional is if the amendment was properly ratified. 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. Its not about blacks and whites at all. And the law applies the same way to each individual. Everyone can marry an unmarried non-related adult of the opposite sex, no one can expect to have to have homosexual, polygamous, incestual, ect. relationships as marriage. Edit - I am actually much closer to supporting same sex marriages (or at least civil unions of some sort) than I am of supporting your bogus arguments for it. If same sex marriage (or civil unions) do become law across the US I hope it is from the actions of legislatures rather than courts and I hope the change doesn't rely on the bogus ideas you are presenting in favor of it. If it is based on clear headed well thought out logical reasons and achieves majority support and the laws gets changed after a period of time for political debate and adjustment I wouldn't oppose the change. 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. Not always, and never if it is a USSC decision. True courts rarely if ever explicitly say "I'm going to impose my opinion and to hell with the constitution", but going against what the constitution actually says isn't that rare and using justifications other than the constitution itself is starting to become common. Since the Constitution defines our democracy, it also is undemocratic... ...However, the American Constitution defines the American democracy. Therefore, if you violate the Constitution, you are violating the democracy. The constitution is the basic law for our country, but democracy does not require a written constitution, and a written constitution does not mean that you automatically have a democracy. Our constitution spells out rules for our democratic republic but you could have an entirely different set of rules and still have a democratic republic. If the majority decided to go against part of the constitution and their decision remained in effect it would be a democratic action, even if it was unconstitutional. The principle that would be violated would not be democracy but rather the rule of law. I'm not saying that violating the idea of the rule of law is any better than violating the idea of democracy but it isn't the same thing even if it is as bad or perhaps even worse. Tim