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: Cogito who wrote (76921)	7/28/2008 7:45:32 AM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543140

I think that should answer all your questions. Thanks. I have a couple more. If the State Legislature passes a law, or the voters pass a resolution[bold mine] on the subject, that's within their purview, too, as long as the law or resolution that is passed is constitutional. 26 states now have defined marriage within their constitutions, I believe all or nearly all by constitutional amendment, as being between one man and one woman. [A number of others also have statutes on the books to the same effect. In Maryland, a state judge found their statute to be unconstitutional, a ruling that is currently under appeal.] Source: ncsl.org Do you believe those constitutional amendments to be unconstitutional? If the voters in California were to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman, do you believe that the California Supreme Court should accept that as constitutional, or reject it as being unconstitutional?