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 (76924)	7/28/2008 4:56:44 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 543149

>>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?<< BP - That's kind of a silly question, it seems to me. If it's in the constitution, it is, ipso facto, constitutional. Thus, no court can rule that it is unconstitutional. Now of course, this applies only within each specific state constitution. It is possible that some part of a state constitution could be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. As things stand, the voters of a number of states have seen fit to institutionalize baseless discrimination by approving anti-gay-marriage amendments to their constitutions. That's pretty much their business, as far as I'm concerned. I can have an opinion about it, but it's not up to me to do anything to change it. I'm proud to live in a state that does allow gay marriage. I'm hoping that the resolution banning gay marriage here will not pass in November. It's going to be close. - Allen