Here in Caleeforneeyah, people kind of pride themselves on the notion that it is the land of nuts and fruits. Only a real local can say that about the place, so I don't. I'm just an indefinite tourist living the dream. Or something.
A couple of collegiate types somewhere in the state are trying to get a proposition on the ballot to take the state out of marriage of any kind, man-woman, same sex, human and bear, etc. I think for legal reasons such unions would be called "domestic partnership" or some such.
I have to say, I tend to agree, but probably for different reasons. I do not see it a proper function of government to involve itself in marriage. Really, I don't. I wouldn't want to enter into it, but I would let people marry more than one unit at a time if they are all willing. I can go with an age of consent but that's it. And for various reasons, not personal, I'd put the age maybe lower than some would like.
Such things are the job of the culture the homes, etc., not tax paid goons. The whole marriage blowup(no, not intended) would not exist if it weren't for stupid tax codes and intrusive laws. I'd vote for a measure that removes the government from marriage and lots of other things.
These non-issues which are rooted in choices some would make and some wouldn't but which are not really anyone else's business merely smokescreen things like the wholesale theft of wealth and savings and other measure designed to create control and dependence. I can't believe people love that feeling of vicarious power enough to fall for it. But they do. Even smart people. For the life of me I can't grasp why people are so afraid of freedom.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
Followers
Blog Archive
- ► 2016 (175)
- ► 2015 (183)
- ► 2014 (139)
- ► 2013 (186)
- ► 2012 (287)
- ► 2011 (362)
- ► 2010 (270)
You're bang-on again! Why human relationships should be the State's business I have never understood. Taking marriage power from the government gets us closer to what was intended when the Constitution was written.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be the rule in some European countries -- and may still be -- that those who wanted a church wedding also had to have a civil ceremony as well. Good idea. But it's better when the word "marriage" stays with non-governmental sources (organized religions, etc.).
I'm sure such a move wouldn't hurt business at the Elvis Wedding Chapel. Losing that would be a sad price to pay for freedom.
In Germany we have the civil ceremony first, then the church sermony if you want one. The civil one is often a few days before, with only a small group of friends/family, while the church ceremony is a big bash.
ReplyDeleteI see no problem with marriage being regulated. If people could marry who they want, as many as they want, etc., it would quickly get misused as with so many other things. And the ones who get hurt the most are the weakest ones, the children.