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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1128)	8/22/2006 9:32:22 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Just to keep the record straight, the state of Washington ultimately (2006) found no fundamental right for gay marriage. Despite significant differences in the rulings, a majority of justices in both cases [NY & Wash.] refused to grant same-sex couples a "fundamental right" to marry, although they acknowledged that heterosexuals have such a right. And unlike Massachusetts’ highest court, which rejected arguments that the state had a "compelling" interest in banning same-sex marriage, the rulings in New York and Washington found that the state had a “legitimate” and “compelling” interest in promoting procreation by only allowing heterosexuals to marry. stateline.org

To: epicure who wrote (1128)	8/22/2006 10:53:30 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Legal discrimination has always been OK except for certain carved out exceptions. This is nothing new under the law. What we have here is your personal opinion and one trial judge's interpretation of a state's family law act---which a lot of legal commentators found surprising and do not think will stand. Of course a majority of personal opinions such as yours could change the legal status by electing legislatures who would be in favor of reclassifying the category of marriage. It has always been thus. Marriage is a legal status that the state gets to regulate. If they say it is OK for certain classes of people to marry than it is OK. Until they do your personal opinion that it is "wrong" to discriminate against humans (I don't want to get into the pet argument here) who want to marry is just that----a personal opinion. It sounds like to me though you want to change who gets to decide from the state legislature to the US Supreme Court. I think, but am not certain, that would take an amendment to the US Constitution which again would have to go through the state legislatures. So all is politics. Our system can bend if it has to. Of course you know all this. I just like to pontificate. Let us forget homosexuals for a minute. Couldn't the state regulate the right of genetic defective heterosexuals to marry? (a compelling state interest not to allow the passing on of genes which cause mental disability inasmuch as these people often become wards of the state). I am not asking if you agree with the proposition, but whether the state could legally do it?