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: d[-_-]b who wrote (108227)	4/10/2009 1:44:07 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541519

DB - I think that it's a question for the states, for one thing. That has its downside, but it's pretty much a matter of law. I don't foresee a Constitutional Amendment changing that. I also think that having civil unions would probably delay same sex marriage. It's harder for me to see whether it would be preferable to have one or the other. What I'd like to see is the solution that has been suggested here and elsewhere, which is to have all states stop using the word "marriage" for their civil marriages. Just give everyone legal civil unions, which confer all the legal privileges (and penalties), and let people who wish to be "married" do that in a church. The state would not recognize church weddings as legal contracts. Of course, current marriages would have to be recognized civilly under a grandfather clause. I think that would be a very clear solution to the problem. But chances are we're going to muddle along with much less definitive answers for a while. - Allen PS: I agree with you that some practical solution is necessary sooner rather than later.