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: Sr K who wrote (250359)	5/17/2008 4:08:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793913

Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. This is mere assertion. Since past judicial decisions also considered marriage other than between a man and a woman inimical to healthy family relationships, this does not provide much of a backstop. All they need to do, apparently, is decide that polygamous marriages are not inimical to family relations, as they have decided gay marriages are not, to overturn that ban as well. After all, polygamous marriages have the sanction of religion and custom for thousands of years in many parts of the world, while gay marriages are a brand-new innovation. As Baxter's dissent points out, the judiciary has breached the separation of powers to write the law from the bench. Once this begins, where does it end? At the point where judges get recalled, I suppose.