SI
SI
discoversearch

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: koan who wrote (43873)11/7/2008 11:54:31 PM
From: LLCF  Respond to of 149317
 
<Since marriage is a legal entity recognized by the state (for the sake of this argument at least in the US) don't they get to define it and regulate it? <<

<<No>>

Well, of course they do... that's what the whole thing is about... changing the laws of marriage. One group wants more inclusivity one doesn't, or wants less.

I guess my point would be why are there ANY LAWS about marriage??? What's the point? Who cares what people are doing with these archaic cerimonies??

DAK



To: koan who wrote (43873)11/8/2008 12:11:43 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Our system is that which you and De Tocquiville describe unless a "fundamental" right granted/recognized by the US Constitution (or a state constiution) is at stake for the individual. Then the majority doesn't get to rule--unless a "compelling" state interest is at stake--like the State's survival during wartime--then fundamental indiviudal rights do get overuled.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News