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: combjelly who wrote (224668)	3/17/2005 3:38:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572099

But the meaning is generally regarded to be that "all mean are created equal" in the eyes of the law, i.e. the law applies equally to all. Exactly. and "all mean are created equal in the eyes of the law" is different than "everyone must be treated equally". The difference is not small or splitting hairs. "Everyone must be treated equally has a far wider meaning than the constitutional provision for equal protection of the law, or even the statement in the Declaration of Independence about "all men being created equal" (in the eyes of the law). If everyone must be treated equally (even assuming its just treated equally by the government) than you can't have distinctions between children and adults, between 18-21 and over 21, between under 62 or 65 or 67 and over each age (for terms of SS and other social programs). You can't require men to sign up for selective service without requiring women to do so. You can't have the government pay different employees different salaries. All in all it would be pretty crazy. But even if you still consider it splitting hairs, in some situations splitting hairs can be important, esp when someone is trying to say one thing is almost like another, which is almost like another which is almost like a third thing. The constitution provides for "equal protection of the laws" which you apparently think is just about the same as "created equal in the eyes of the law", which you then turn around and say is the same thing as being having to be treated equally, which apparently you also think means having to be treated fairly. Then apparently you think not allowing same sex marriage is not fair, and you follow the progression backwards to say that its unconstitutional. You can find some thing A, which is almost the same as B, which is almost the same as C, which is almost the same as D, but that doesn't mean that D is almost the same as A. You have to split hairs somewhere along the lines to draw the important distinction. Tim