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: koan who wrote (43874)	11/7/2008 11:46:01 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Koan, I have an edge on you here inasmuch I have been trained in the law (I am not claiming legal expertise in this area) so in a sense it is not fair of me to ask you to make a legal argument, BUT it is exactly this kind of legal argument which the people who will be conferring or denying the gay community the "right" they seek will have to contend. So I sense that you are saying that a person's choice to marry is not some fundamental "inalienable" right granted under the US Constitution (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), but is one of those rights conferred by the state. The California Supreme Court (I think--I haven't read the decision--only a synopsis) has said it was discriminatory (under the Calif. State Constitution) to deny Gays the "right" to marry. Other states have passed statues defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" thus exempting gays from being considered for the "right" to marry. Where does this leave us? Legally confused for sure (not to mention culturally either). So long as a person's choice of marriage partner (or being) is not considered some "fundamental" right conferred by the US Constitution then, I foresee a state by state pattern emerging where the right is recognized and not recognized--unlike the segregation issue which could be ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. (One area the US Supreme Ct could weigh in on would be whether a state that does not recognize gays right to marry has to recognize a marriage licence for another gay couple under the US Constitution's full Faith and Credit Clause. I know for you the issue is heartfelt with real life consequences. For the legal community, it provides endless grist for their "how many angels on the head" of pin crowd. Vinter