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: cnyndwllr who wrote (112249)	6/2/2009 10:41:53 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541768

The real test is, I believe, whether the issue is so important to the individual and so "none of your business" to the state that the court will wrinkle it's collective nose and find a way to work in the protection. The issue isn't can people of the same sex, have ceremonies, call themselves married, live together, have a committed romantic and sexual relationship, etc. To the extent that was ever the issue, its been settled. Such things are none of the governments business (and where none even when there where laws against such things, the government just unjustly acted as if they where its business). The issue now is government recognition of and benefits for such relationships. If you want recognition and benefits from the government it can't be "none of the governments business". If its properly none of the government's business, and the government respects that point, that means there would be no recognition or benefits. And action from the courts on the issue would also be making it the government's business as the courts are part of the government.