henktermaat
Master
- Jan 3, 2009
- 4,952
- 38
I dont think it's a matter of purity of the cannidate. I cant see the justification to compromise more and more traditional values. Im against illegal immigration, and point be known - ALL FORMS of immigration until our immigrant issue is solved.
WTF would any American support Work visa program in our economical situation? The illegals I know talk about shipping money and goods back home; So steal the jobs, then put the profits else where.
This aint rocket science folks, AMERICA FIRST.. Not Gays first... Not Mexico First.. Not Liberalism first.
AMERICA FIRST. If we cant find a cannidate to be what we need, then America is certainly doomed. And to be quite honest, I'd have a chance to rebuild, then sit in limbo listening to abunch of traitious cowardly politicians (Not directed at anyone specific, but EVERYONE.)
What happened to "the government should not be involved"?...and the Govt should offer partnership contracts between one person and one person.
Government does offer such contracts - it's called "marriage."...Govt should offer partnership contracts between one person and one person...
Show me the quote from either of those articles that prohibits standing armies.
Let's rewind.“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen” - James Madison
The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.
They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.
Agree with everything you said except...
What happened to "the government should not be involved"?
And what have you got against polygamy?
IMO, if consenting adults can agree to it of their own free will, government should get bent.
Government does offer such contracts - it's called "marriage."
I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.I don't believe that marriage should be a Federal issue. I also don't really believe that it should be a state issue either, but if people want the government in their bedroom, it should happen at the State level, not the Federal one.
As far as estate issues go, that is what arbitration and wills are for. If the deceased didn't have a will, then you can pay for arbitration if an equitable solution can not be determined without one.
Also, a good reason to have a living will.
... but if people want the government in their bedroom, it should happen at the State level...
I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.
I concur mostly with you, the only reason I feel the govt should offer legal partnership contracts is for the purposes of next of kin rights, POA, death benefits, basically all the legal benefits of marriage.
Let them fight. Anyone who would turn the possessions of their deceased relative into a massive legal battle is a drain on society and this will keep them busy for a while instead of screwing things up for the rest of us.Again this opinion of mine is not popular it's just something I formulated in my mind after thinking for hours about how the govt should be small and stay out but at the same time people need those rights to prevent huge legal fights when/if the family wants something out of an estate.
Hello,
Very very well stated.
Thanks,
Matthew
This is just subsidizing legal services. If they want those things, they can hire their own damned lawyer.
Let them fight. Anyone who would turn the possessions of their deceased relative into a massive legal battle is a drain on society and this will keep them busy for a while instead of screwing things up for the rest of us.
I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.
Hello,
Until it's happened to you it's very hard to understand. Imagine if you were gay and you and your partner spent a very long time together building up this business or life together and they died of cancer. The legal wills, and all of that have very well known limitations. Even death bed rights come into question. The next thing you know someone is trying to take everything away from you. Sometimes they win... Documentaries, famous stories, and articles have been written about how often these wills fail in legal battles. When someone tries to take everything from you.. something you bled, sweated, and worked years for... well you will fight for it.
Thanks,
Matthew
Marriage is a legal fiction, run by government, as it stands right now. As such all people who stand before the law must be treated equally. That's what this nation was founded upon. Until government is no longer involved in marriage, (which will be no time soon) it will remain a legal matter with government oversight. Therefor all people who engage in it MUST be treated equally.I know some gay people and they seem like decent folks. Nothing personal against them. However, the equal under the law argument just doesn't do it for me relative to gay marriage. No man (gay or straight) can marry another man. We are all being treated equally. If someone wants to support gay marriage, I don't think it should be from the "equality" perspective. What I see here is gays asking for rights above and beyond what's already afforded to all of us.