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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (470149)	4/9/2009 5:43:21 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1575626

Z, > Totally. Do you agree? Not sure about this, since we've had hundreds of years of common law recognizing marriage and the property rights associated with such. Here's what I think, though. If the voters via the legislature want to define a marriage between any two people regardless of gender, then I'm fine with that. I hear that's what they did in Vermont. However, I'm NOT fine with twisting the definition of "equal protection" just so that anyone can define what a marriage is for their own convenience. That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down. Tenchusatsu