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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (21729)	5/16/2008 12:07:58 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

I am expecting this to become a hot campaign issue soon. With the ruling, I think the courts have given marriage a new angle and has steered it away from the "union between man and woman" concept. ========================= Married by God or Government? While today is a happy day for those of us who strongly support gay marriage rights, the ruling by the California Supreme Court comes with a big anxious sigh. So far, the presidential election has managed to (mostly) stay out of the territory of divisive issues such as abortion and gay marriage and stick to legislative changes that will affect all of our lives constantly, daily and hourly, like health care, the recession, and the war. Maybe this makes me radical, but I don't want my politicians debating God's law or referring to the Old Testament. You know where the whole back and forth about marriage being between a man and a woman -- not Adam and Steve -- belongs? In church. (Or talk radio!) What's hard these days as a youngish person is the sense that progress is immediately interpreted as perversion. Of course I understand that one woman's progress is another's going to hell in a hand basket. But where I think we as Americans can find common ground is a place called privacy. Our founding fathers bestowed a right to individuality and equality through our amazing constitution. The nascent nation was incredibly denominationally diverse and they knew that in order for there to be peace there had to be this combination of privacy and equality. As far as California's governance over marriage is concerned, my feeling is that if marriage is something the government is granting, then all tax-paying citizens of all orientations should have the right by law to receive it. And by the same token, I think people who believe that homosexuality is against God should be respected for their beliefs. The leadership of their faith group should come to its own stance through debate and make their own call on how they recognize and sanctify marriage. Meanwhile, they shouldn't be forced to watch anything with Ryan Seacrest or wear Thom Browne suits. Done. What would make me sad would be if we saw a repeat of the culture war mentality that ensued following the Massachusetts ruling in 2004, when it became the first state to uphold gay marriage. Fear was incited, and religious and conservative voters felt they had no choice but to vote for Bush. Now I don't really care who people vote for but it just would be a pity if just when this country was teeter-tottering dangerously in its economic vitality and its role as a global leader, we put everything aside and worried only about whether Adam and Steve were sanctified by the state. An ort: I just came home from my friend Dan's 35th birthday dinner. Dan is gay and on the macho side of emotion but when we all clinked glasses to toast him he said quietly that this was a really special day for him because of the ruling. I know his mother is a deeply religious Catholic woman who goes to mass every day and who is also Dan's best friend. I'm guessing she's happy for him. newsweek.washingtonpost.com