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: Cogito who wrote (111996)	5/26/2009 8:14:53 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541573

If the law said that only consenting people of the same sex could marry, that would be the same kind of equality. But that's not what the law says. This argument and that equality doesn't exists is a strawman argument. What Suma is advocating is changing the definition of marriage. True equal treatment requires that any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult, as long as they are both otherwise unencumbered and meet whatever the other basic requirements are. That's an opinion, one I don't share. Jim

To: Cogito who wrote (111996)	5/28/2009 9:28:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541573

If the law said that only consenting people of the same sex could marry, that would be the same kind of equality. Would that be OK with you? It would be equal treatment under the law. OTOH equal treatment under/by the law, doesn't necessarily amount to reasonable treatment or good policy. My opinion (copied from a post I made on another thread) Technically they are treated equally under the law now. A gay man or a straight man can marry a gay or straight woman. A gay woman or a straight woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no constitutional requirement to change that. The argument is more one of fairness which is largely subjective, but arguably equal treatment under the law can be unfair. (The classic example is a law that forbids the rich and the poor from begging, both face the same restriction, but the rich can still do what they want or need to do, the poor perhaps not.) A side note - I don't really consider the issue to be "gay/same sex marriage". Its "state recognition of and benefits to gay/same sex marriages". Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, consider themselves to be spouses, expect others to consider the same, live together, have a sexual and romantic relationship etc. If the state tried to forbid that it would be a major abuse, and I would be totally against the politicians pushing those restrictions. On the recognition issue, I've shifted from being against it, to being pretty neutral, only not wanting the courts to invent or misapply some constitutional principle to settle the issue by judicial fiat. If the people and their elected representatives want to recognize and provide benefits to such relationships I won't oppose it.