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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (168674)	6/6/2006 7:30:42 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

This, by the way, is why I gave up my membership in the Federalist Society. Too many statists these days. Are you saying that Federalist Society has been taken over by statists?

To: Ilaine who wrote (168674)	6/6/2006 2:24:26 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793896

Civil marriage is a government program. There is a movement to expand this government program. I oppose it on the grounds that government expansion should be resisted on all fronts.

To: Ilaine who wrote (168674)	6/8/2006 1:02:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793896

I'm not so sure I agree with your statement about the federal government defining marriage being strongly against the vision of the founders, OTOH I would not object to an amendment that dropped "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." and just said "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." or used some other language to make sure that a state law, state judge, or federal judge, couldn't impose "gay marriage" or polygamy on the country. (Not that I think legally recognized polygamous marriages are going to happen any time soon, its and idea that doesn't have anywhere near the political support it would need to pass, but the logic of redefining marriage to include homosexual unions would seem to include polygamy, in fact polygamy has been and still is, much more common, and more likely to be socially recognized as a marriage, then homosexual unions.)