- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Damn minorly, tricky situations that don't fit into neat geometrical political models. These must need to be solved by centralised, uniform interference!
Zimmer, why not an option for the government to get out of marriage entirely?
How would YOU suggest they are solved? On what basis?
How would YOU suggest they are solved? On what basis?
Let the states decide and it is non-transferable.
.
They don't always have to be "solved". Just in case no one told you libs, perfection is far from always possible in politics and to constantly struggle for it can be quite dangerous.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Easy answer for me. It's up to the states, and not the Federal government's business.
This poll doesn't include the important "Marriage should not be a legal entity to begin with, for anyone" option.
Only because that's a ridiculous option to begin with.
All I was saying is not all ambiquities need to be solved if that means we need to bring in some centralised authority. I'm not particularly interested in the ins and outs of the cases but simply in stating that one has to weigh up the problems with the costs of the centralised solution and should not be afriad of minor distortions to geometrical models of politics.Perfection may be impossible, but a resolution to lawsuits is always possible. So I'll rephrase the question:
Who would YOU propose deals with each of the situations I listed, if not the federal government? They all either involve the federal government directly, or affect the jurisdiction of more than one state which therefore involves the federal government indirectly.
The feds can't just abdicate responsibility on this. Only the feds have the authority to do anything about those examples I listed, as explicitly stated in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution:
All I was saying is not all ambiquities need to be solved if that means we need to bring in some centralised authority. I'm not particularly interested in the ins and outs of the cases but simply in stating that one has to weigh up the problems with the costs of the centralised solution and should not be afriad of minor distortions to geometrical models of politics.
Saying you aren't afraid of minor distortions is all well and good, but sooner or later people will start filing lawsuits for the reasons in that list (and other ambiguous situations that aren't on the list). When that happens, what are the federal courts going to do? Tell the plaintiffs/prosecutors and defendants to figure it out on their own? That seems highly unlikely. They're going to eventually rule that states must recognize marriages in other states, which will effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide.
My ass it is. Name one reason marriage should be a government institution.
Because marriage tends to produce stronger communities, more disposable wealth which helps the economy and a more stable populace, all of which are things which the government, as representatives of the people, ought to be supporting.
Because marriage tends to produce stronger communities,
more disposable wealth which helps the economy and a more stable populace,
all of which are things which the government, as representatives of the people, ought to be supporting.
You should remember though that to my recollection Unrein is a completely atomistic individualist or egoist, ie no such thing as society, kind of a guy(except strangely on economics.).
Your points came out to the same thing.I'am neither saying society doesn't exist, nor that it isn't important. I'am saying that government directed social engineering or people's personal lives and relationships pollutes society, it doesn't abet it.
This is where you make no sense, property and the economy are very important in the lives of individuals, as important to society as the right for homosexuals to marry.And the economy is not the same thing. The placement of material goods and direction of production is not the same thing as personal freedom to one's own body and relationship to other people.
This is where you make no sense, property and the economy are very important in the lives of individuals, as important to society as the right for homosexuals to marry.
I'am not saying the right for gays to marry isn't important, I am saying using the government to engineer personal social interaction will never help, it will only damage.
Gov't is one of many important social associations and relationships, to neglect its place is as bad as too overstate it. Gov't certainly has a role in supporting a healthy society and healthy social associations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?