Marriage, as the union of two people in a "life-long" legal contract with responsibilities and equity, is a good place for the goernment to step in. Marriage, as a holy matrimony, is purely religious and is up to the religions to decide. Legal issues should be up to the government, religious issues up to the churches. While marriage was originally brought into this country as a holy matrimony of religious significance, it has largely changed to the status of a legal contract with only ritual religious significance. However Bush, with the language he is using, sounds like he's trying to take us back to the Puritan days and clense ourselves of the impurities and take it back to a religious significance....oh, with a couple legal implications too.
What's the difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage? Either semantics (if you are Bush's speach writer) or religious morals. Either way, neither has a place in the Constitution, and I would stretch so far as to say state law as well. Civil unions, as folks are calling them, are basically the legal side of marriage without the religious side. What's the difference, then. Marriage, legally, is only based upon religion in the sense of ritual administration. Beyond that, it is purely a legal contract. Hence why I believe Bush is trying to take a step at the revocation of the freedoms of homosexuals.
Bad Bush, no oil for you!
Highlander: You mention the increasing incidence of homosexuality in the US. Now is the number of homosexuals in the US actually increasing, or is it merely a mirage? The fact that homosexuality is increasingly becoming more
acceptable in the media and to many people, especially younger folk, is it not entirely possible that the apparent numbers are only rising due to people "coming out of the closet"??? I honestly don't know the numbers myself, but I would suspect that people are merely being more open with their sexuality and it only
appears as though homosexuality is a growing trend.
Many gay men were married back in the day. It was considered abhorrent to be gay and also bad to be a single man. To appear "successful" one must be married, have children, and a decent job. Many gay men would do just such a thing, playing "the man's game" to keep their head above the waters while also living a secret life of homosexuality. These days those men are living their lives of homosexuality in the open without the fake marriages.
What I was saying about tax cuts was not directed to you, but it was spurred by your comments. Many people overlook (or don't even know about) the AMT when thinking of tax cuts. While the tax cuts are beneficial in ways, they are also detrimental in others. The most obvious detriment is the near-term loss in tax revenue for the country. Whether the tax cut helps the long-term revenue of the government is a matter of great debate for even the most educated, experienced, and knowledgeable economists. However the impact of the AMT is very real and not such a subject for debate. Without reform, year-to-year it will hit a quickly growing number of people and provide solid revenue for the government while still allowing officials to tout their tax cuts. I have my own ideas of what I'd like to see in our tax structure, however I do not claim to have an answer on how to balance the budget, nor do I claim to understand all the chalenges and tradeoffs that are faced by those trying to balance the budget.
I also agree there are many wasted social programs. Personally I don't like the idea of handouts, they promote laziness and provide no incentive for people to get off their asses and work, which hurts our economy. They're much like government jobs.
However slums and extreme poverty also hurt our economy, they drive up crime rates and devalue property. There's no simple way to deal with it. Sometimes, though, the greater benefit is to invest in handouts rather than face the alternative. This principle is also evident in international politics. Why do you think the US gives aid to North Korea? Same basic principles, just different stakes.
The problem with politics is that, even the smartest politician, can't implement the smartest plan. While many politicians have good ideas, they are crushed by such things as public opion and the "image" they have. It takes balls to speak the truth, and even more to act upon the truth. The simple fact is that many Americans are stupid when it comes to ideas such as economics, and even more stupid when it comes to international politics and policies. But the fact of the matter is, the politician must do the best job possible while keeping the voters happy. It's a job, they like job security just as much as the next person does. And in the end they do things to get votes, not to help us. They do things that people THINK will help us, even though they won't.
Take education reforms, for example. Nobody has the balls to do what it takes, or even say what it takes, to get our education system on track. Yet all sorts of politicians have all these great ideas that will "help educate America's youth and give us a brighter future." Sheot, they've been saying that for years, and they've been failing miserably at it. Because the voters can't handle the truth.....the politicians play to politics, not what's best. It's a catch-22 of the job, and we all suffer because of it. Oh the irony!
b