PhotoDude.com

Actually, I think the tax thing was next on their agenda… and it failed, too. But, by God, we killed a terrorist!

- At least seven years in jail (where you may learn more about same sex relationships). –
Very witty and very true. Completely agree with you:)

Joel, I don’t know why, but I suspected that would be the one line I might get some trouble over. But it seemed the right thing to say, nonetheless.

John, you’re right. You see, these days I only skim the talking points that get delivered to me, and I guess I got it out of order. Before we tackle the prevalent sin of roadside flag burnings that are seen daily all over America, we have to cut government funding some more.

Because in a time we are constantly reminded “we’re at war,” and as we prepare to add another zero to our national debt as it approaches 10 trillion bucks … we simply must try to pander with more tax cuts. But calling it the “Axis of Evil Death Tax” apparently didn’t scare enough Senators into lining up behind future Presidential Candidate Frist.

Maybe they’ll have better luck on 2008. Because none of these issues are “important” enough to address in any year that ends in an odd number.

Legitimizing is one thing. That’s a cultural question. Personally, I think Civil Unions is the way to go, and then the ingrained beliefs about “marriage” can be avoided completely.

However….

Legalizing all sorts of relationships, under the umbrella of “marriage” or “civil unions” would knock the Federal and State entitlement programs into a tizzy. (That’s one reason why most states will not establish common law marriages, although all states recognize them.) ESPECIALLY, when the logical step of legalizing multiple partner marriages is addressed.

A fair number of the inheirtance laws would have to be re-written.

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, just means that there’s a cost to it, that should be fully explored before acting.

ESPECIALLY, when the logical step of legalizing multiple partner marriages is addressed.

a logical step? what sort of logical step are we talking about here?

Maybe it’s a logical step like “If I don’t buy a Humvee the terrorists have already won”? Or perhaps its a logical step like “the sun revolves around the earth so everybody whose last name ends in ‘r’ should stand on their heads for 23 minutes every other Tuesday”?

We haven’t begun to see the consequences of “civil unions” yet. Yet, all actions have consequences.

Circa 1968, a Federal judge, using the elegant phrase, “The sins of the parents shall not be visited on their children,” mandated that illegimate children would enjoy the same rights as legimate children. Almost immediately, tens of thousands of children, that had been denied survivor benefits on their father’s Social Security accounts, were entitled. The numbers eventually grew to hundreds of thousands.

These unanticipated entitlements, increased the pressure on the “Trust Fund”, and, about twenty years later, children’s benefits were reduced from age 18 to age 16, (age 21 to age 18 if in school) for all surviving children. (The reduction wasn’t based solely on this action, but the action contributed to the pressure)

The legality of same sex civil unions has yet to be tested outside of certain small localities, but when it is, (and it will take years), and when the Federal government accepts it, only then will the true effects begin to be apparent.

Again, just because something will have some negative effects does not mean it shouldn’t be done, only that to maintain that a change in a cultural norm will have no effects is simply not possible.