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: Bridge Player who wrote (76916)	7/28/2008 4:05:23 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543131

>>What do you believe to be Obama's personal beliefs about homosexual marriage, and whether it should be legalized? If the issue were to be decided on a state-by-state basis, do you believe that it should be decided by ....the State Legislature? ....the voters in the state? ....the State Supreme Court? If he were to repeat, and stick with, his earlier statement that "marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman", would you say that you disagree with him on that issue? What do you believe that Obama's views on homosexual marriage would be if and when he became elected president?<< BP - I think Obama's views on this are clear. He is opposed to gay "marriage", but favors civil unions. That is a reasonable civil rights view, in my opinion. I see no reason to believe that his views will suddenly change after he is elected, though as he said, they might evolve over time. I agree with him that it is an issue for the states, and not for the Federal government. I think civil unions that confer the same benefits as marriage are fine. We had a big discussion about this here some time ago, and the best solution anyone came up with, as far as I'm concerned, was to get governments out of the marriage business altogether. Have the government sanction civil unions (for both hetero- and homosexuals), which would have all the legal ramifications that marriage currently has. Then let churches sanction "marriages" for those who wish to have them. Obviously, the country is a long way from reaching that point, but I think eventually we'll probably get to someplace like that. Obama and I may well disagree on some issues. I don't expect any candidate to mirror my views exactly. By the way, I have noticed that the institution of marriage remains alive and well in both California and Massachusetts, despite the fact that homosexuals can now marry in both states. If a State Supreme Court should decide that a specific state's marriage laws are unconstitutional, as the California Court did, then that is within their purview. They are constitutionally mandated to decide what is and isn't constitutional. If the State Legislature passes a law, or the voters pass a resolution on the subject, that's within their purview, too, as long as the law or resolution that is passed is constitutional. I think that should answer all your questions. - Allen