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 (155348)	1/29/2011 11:18:44 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541747

What you're arguing is that homosexuals don't have the right to marry because that right isn't specifically granted in the Constitution I think the anti-gay marriage crowd's argument is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so gays by definition cannot marry. They can enter into something called a civil union which is similar to, but not the same as, a marriage. If my understanding is correct the whole thing seems to be splitting hairs, but I think that is the anti-gay marriage argument. Myself, as I wrote earlier, I have nothing against gay marriage, but I'd like to know more about the legal ramifications which would result, if any. Moreover, the Constitution doesn't guarantee heterosexuals the right to marry, either, yet you still believe they have it, right? State law passed by democratically elected legislatures gives heterosexuals the legal right to marry. Most states don't grant gays the same legal right, that's what the debate is all about.