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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (21501)	7/31/2012 6:45:03 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

As for giving legal partnerships to "anybody", they already do that in many states. They're called civil unions and you may be one of the few people who think they're a solution. Gay marriage proponents DEMAND marriage. They don't even want civil unions ie legal partnerships. That's what the dispute in CA was all about. They already had civil unions. After they get marriage, actually they're not waiting for that, they're going to demand that everyone and every institution who disagrees with or disapproves of it be legally punished. From item 2 in this post. As long as there is a legal definition for "marriage" the gay community is going to be able to say that this harkens back to the "separate but equal" argument. the solution is not to give marriage to everyone (legally speaking), it is to take it away from everyone (legally speaking). It's things like this where there should be some negotiation. I see it as a straight libertarian argument where everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The flipside of the libertarian argument is that we have freedom of association and that private individuals and businesses should have the right to discriminate on whatever basis they choose. There is a similar parallel with the first amendment. Many people are under the impression that the first amendment applies to all organizations. But it really only applies to the government. The government cannot abridge free speech. But a corporation surely can. The government shouldn't be able to discriminate based on based on religion, gender preference, race...etc....but that doesn't mean that a private business should be restricted from doing so.