Martha Stewart and Gay Marriages

[webiggy]

I was having a very interesting argument with my stepfather today re: the Martha Stewart case. Now, personally, I can't stand the bitch and I think she probably has a special place in hell reserved for her in the same wing as George Steinbrenner, Ken Ley, Jeff Skilling, Leona Helmsley and Charles Keating. Having said that, the reasons for her prosecution are little sketchy to me, as proved out by the judge in the case yesterday.

Anyway, being an accountant, I'm very sensitive to insider trading laws (although not as familiar with them as I should be) and really believe that those Gordon Gecko wannabes should go to jail.

So back to the argument. My stepdad says that a client shouldn't be held legally liable for acting on the advice of a stockbroker that is KNOWN to have been based in inside information. It's on this point that I became very vocal in stating that it's this type of activity that spawned the SEC laws of the 1930's and that anyone who knowlingly acts on such information in bad faith is subject to the same scrutiny and legal liability as the person soliciting the trade transaction to begin with. Further, since MS is the CEO of a public company herself, shouldn't she be held to a higher standard? Oh and by the way, since her friend is the chairman of mClone, doesn't that also put her in greater legal peril???

Well to this point, dad makes a stupid analogy on what's happening here in SF re: gay marriages. He then goes on this rant that by my reasoning, Gavin Newsome (SF's mayor), the employees at city hall performing the marriages, and all the gay couples who have exchanged nuptials should all be thrown in jail for breaking state law. BTW, he's very conservative so I think he really believes this.

I submit that perhaps the mayor could be subject to some legal remedies such as a fine for each offense, but to compare the two is like comparing jaywalking to capital murder. The point I made was that I believe that marriage falls under contract law and that entering into a marriage that is not recognized by law is not a criminal offence (except in such cases such as bigamy), but rather a case where such a contract is unenforcable. Whether or not the mayor is subject to criminal prosecution is another story, but the I couldn't see the punishment for such a crime being very severe.

He really bristled at this and for some reason could not get his arms around the fact that while breaking the law is breaking the law (thank you Judas Priest), that all crimes are not created equal and therefor should be judged accordingly.

My opinion is that securities violations perpetrated (sp?) by rich, powerful people is a greater crime to society than gay people getting married in hopes of gaining the same rights and priveledges as heterosexual couples (although the thought of kissing a dude on the lips gives me the willies).

Your thoughts...?