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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (623)	6/10/2005 8:02:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541673

Many of court decisions and federal laws that resulted in the federal government enforcing desegregation on unwilling states where somewhat constitutionally questionable. They did however produce very good results. Many people today would say that the ends justified the means. I might even join them if I believed it was impossible to achieve the ends without using inappropriate , and in a real sense illegal means. But such decisions would be less questionable than a court decision enforcing the things you listed on its own (not interpreting or enforcing law but creating law). The schools in the South were government schools. The 14th amendment can be interpreted as giving you are right against discrimination and segregation caused or enforced by the government. A number of the items on your list are not government examples but rather demands for private organizations or individuals to do something or not do something. Also there is the point that gay people have all the marriage rights that straight people have. They can marry a willing, unrelated adult of the opposite sex. Of course most of them are not interested in doing that. And of course applying that law evenly does have a disproportionate impact against them. (similar to the impact of the law mentioned in the quote from Anatole France - "The law in all its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to begin the streets, and to steal bread."). Applying the law in the same way for all, resulting in a less positive impact for some, might in this case be considered unfair, even unreasonable, but even if it is that doesn't make it an unconstitutional. In time ....when the younger generation grows that which was unthinkable becomes palatable by acceptance that it just IS.. That might well be the case. If it is, than passing what you want through federal and state legislation shouldn't be difficult at that time. I had several students commit suicide because of fear of being gay. I never want to see this happen again. Neither do I. Tim