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: cosmicforce who wrote (112224)	5/29/2009 6:17:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541967

If "not" it is not "equal protection". Since its identical treatment it is indeed equal protection, whatever other problems it may have. I don't believe there is any constitutional basis for the federal government interfering with or for that matter sanctioning marriage. It is clearly not an enumerated power. That's an interesting thought. If we look at things that way there should be any (legal) heterosexual marriage either. (By that I don't mean that the marriages would be illegal, but that they wouldn't be legally recognized marriages, "illegal" implies a violation of the law which wouldn't be the case) As for the comments directly about polygamy in that post, they don't really analyze polygamy as an equal protection issue, OTOH if there was no state sanctioning of, benefits for, or punishment of marriage at all, then there is also not equal protection issue involved, so its understandable why you didn't analyze that part given the earlier statement in that post.