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: Elroy who wrote (155355)	1/29/2011 11:43:13 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541789

>>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.<< The legal ramifications would be that homosexuals would enjoy all the benefits of marriage, as enjoyed by heterosexuals. No more and no less. You could look into what's happened in Massachusetts. Nothing cataclysmic seems to have resulted from having gay marriage there. Nor has anything untoward occurred in Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, or D.C., all locales that recognize same sex marriage. OK, so state law grants heterosexuals the right to marry, not the Constitution. That's a valid point. Marriage law is determined by the states, so this isn't even a federal issue. That doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply, and it also doesn't mean that since there's no specific Constitutionally guaranteed right of marriage for gay people, they can't have that right. The Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law, however, prevents the states from institutionalizing discrimination in their laws. As an example, no state could pass a law stating that women must pay higher taxes than men. Even if the majority of the voters in the state approved such a law, it would struck down. Or for example, let's say that a state's voters decided gay people would not be allowed to have driver's licenses. Would that be OK? Obviously not. There's no valid basis for the restriction. Et voila! It's the same with marriage. Gay marriage is, to many of us, a new idea. We never had any laws about it twenty years ago, because gay activists hadn't yet pointed out to us that they were being discriminated against without justification. Heck, I don't think most of us realized they wanted to get married until recently. ;-)

To: Elroy who wrote (155355)	1/30/2011 10:16:54 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 541789

Elroy If gays were permitted to marry there would be more tax burden on everyone as they would not have to pay estate taxes as a single person. They would be able to get the social security of a deceased partner...and the pension if there was one. As I said I could accumulate all sorts of financial ramifications as well as some civil liberties ones but I don't have the energy as I think your mind is made up. The Bible thumpers have more to do with this blockage than any other group. Take the Old Testament and Leviticus is always cited.. The difficulty is that the Bible can be interpreted in many many different ways. As an example I saw an ad today that was held up... on a SIGN by a Tea Party person objecting to the health care. OBAMA IS NOT A BROWN SKIN ANTI WAR SOCIALIST WHO GIVES AWAY FREE HEALTH CARE.. You are thinking of JESUS... Interpretation is in the mind of the person who is taught to hate all those whom his relatives hate.( From South Pacific) This is the moral dilemma on gay marriage...