Well, she is a refreshing young gal, isn't she?!
Her Maryland accent kills me.
Yep, been trying to make that part of the platform of the Republican party in Iowa for the past two election cycles. It just makes so much sense to me.Down side for both parties - they loose a great "tool" to hammer the crap outta the other party.
eiaftinfo, both parties have their wedge issues. For Democrats it is gay rights. They trot them out to whip up support for gay rights among their base but when it comes time to do anything about it they do as little as possible so as to keep stringing along the gay rights community. The Republicans do the same thing with gun rights. They are all over gun rights when they want us to vote for them, but once elected they do as little as possible to keep stringing us along.
Oh my word, the mind boggles at the implications of removing government sanctioned marriages today. Not from a standpoint of morality/religion/sanctity of marriage, but from the legal aspect. Many many contractual relationships between people and businesses, local, state and federal government are determined by the legal sanction and definition of marriage. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I could write volumes on all of the relationships affected.Quickly - any type of insurance, health, life, auto, homeowners; all retirement accounts; many types of employee benefits; wills; taxation at all levels...What a boon for the lawyers, drawing up contractual arrangements for all these things from scratch!A lovely libertarian-like idea, but what chaos would ensue!
Jon, thanks for dropping by.Your argument seems to be that we can't get rid of this unnecessary government regulation because it will impact other unnecessary government regulations. I don't find that compelling.As for wills, insurance policies, etc... all of mine are quite explicit about who plays which part, so the definition of marriage is not important there.ps. man, do you read a lot of books.
Andy, first, right back at you, thanks for dropping by my blog.I'm not necessarily saying we can't get rid of unnecessary government regulation, In fact, I'm opposed in principle to the mess of regulations at all levels that restrict our freedoms.I'm just saying that we should consider the unintended consequences of such an action before we leap into things - unlike our lawmakers, who seldom do so.If you have all of your legal and financial affairs in good order, you are likely one of the few people in this country who do. For example, only 55% of adult Americans have wills in place (source lawyers.com - an admittedly biased survey, but probably not far from the truth). In most jurisdictions, I believe, the "default" inheritance plan mandated by law is that all assets revert to the spouse. So, the question is how, if the legal sanctioning of marriage is changed or removed in a particular jurisdiction, do we then fairly distribute those assets? Being the naturally paranoid type, I suspect that if we removed the legal spouse from the equation, our all-benevolent government would find a way to confiscate them, absent explicit contracts specifying something to the contrary.
Jon,I hear ya. And I don't disagree with anything you said. But just because others are unprepared doesn't mean I should have to deal with unnecessary regulations. Part of allowing the populace to be free is to acknowledge that a good many people will not make the wisest personal choices.