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: LLCF who wrote (43754)	11/7/2008 11:46:03 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

This certainly makes it a much cleaner legal issue.

To: LLCF who wrote (43754)	11/7/2008 12:23:48 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Koan: DAK is sounds like you are proposing the old separate but equal argument. DAK: "" I've taken (the unpopular to many liberals) stance that in many ways (IMHO) those supporting "gay marriage" really went about the whole thing in the wrong way IMNO. The word "Marriage" has been around longer than most "governments" and could be construed as a "religious word". IMHO it would have been a lot easier to persue something like "partnership" or "civil union" and make sure everyone gets the exact same rights in the eyes of the state as "married" people. OTOH, the churches IMPOSED "their" word or concept (marriage) into the public government to get special treatment ages ago... so it's really their own fault. Anyway... for those wanting equal treatment, IMHO they should just be happy to have a "civil union" or something and let the churches have their "little" word. Hell, back in the 60's all sorts of heterosexual couples were having civil cerimoies because they didn't beleive all the chit the churches were spewing. What happend to that concept?? Makes more sense to me to let the churches know what we think of them by ALL OF US NOT GETTING MARRIED at all, but having civil unions.<<