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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (491147)	6/27/2009 2:25:32 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575920

"How come the polygamist's definition of marriage shouldn't be given "equal protection"?" It should. As should gay polygamous marriages, emulating the wild bath house parties of the seventies. It'll happen.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (491147)	6/27/2009 2:42:23 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575920

but what about polygamy? How come the polygamist's definition of marriage shouldn't be given "equal protection"? Nice sleight of hand, but "equal protection" applies to people not marriage definitions. That is, if straight couples have the right to marry, so too should gay couples. Now, if some people (Mormons for example) were allowed to have group marriages but others (non Mormons) were denied group marriage, then you'd have an Equal Protection argument going. Right now you don't. SD