Confucius say to GOP: "He who carve himself up to suit others soon whittle himself away".
You think Greece is bad? Y'all ain't seen nothin' yet. An untethered Hussein for 4 more years? Watch for the "rich" to flee and hide their assets taking jobs with them. It will be an exciting time as unemployment hits 10% nationally (U-6 is already 15%). Watch the food stamp rolls explode (oops it's already happening), disabilities claims soar (oops that happening too). Welcome to Era of Free Lunch where everybody wins by losing something. That something is called freedom.
$60k to raise 3 kids... I see a lot of ramen and hot dogs in their future. At least they'd have the excellent RI public schools to fall back on. Hold the laughter, please.
My issue with state-enforced traditional marriage, or however you'd like to frame it, is on pragmatic grounds. Every law is both underinclusive and overinclusive to some extent, which is to say that there are people who are unjustly included or excluded. A good case for having fewer laws generally. I appreciate the utopian hope for traditional marriage as a bedrock of society, but traditional marriage is so vastly overinclusive and underinclusive in terms of fitness to raise children that the law becomes arbitrary and erodes respect for public institutions. We also see this occurring with drug laws and speed limits. Indeed, the same overinclusiveness counterarguments are brought up again and again: what about old people, what about infertile people, and so on. Justin has an arsenal of defenses lined up for these occasions. I recognize him as a skilled and effective advocate, so the fact that those defenses are consistently strained and unconvincing is further evidence to me that the underlying cause is a weak one.
My sense is that gay marriage is targeted because it's easy - the proverbial drunk searching for car keys under the lamp post because that's where the light is. "We feel gays are on average less able to raise kids than non-gays, so all gays are excluded." This is sloppy policy and erodes respect for rule of law. If you really wanted to exclude bad home environments, you'd be much better off going after violent people, drunk people, mentally ill people, extremely poor people, and a long laundry list of other categories before you reached gay people. This is, of course, unrealistic and would embarrass many conservatives as hypocrites, so they go after the easy target instead.
It should go without saying at this point that gay marriage would be a non-issue if the state stayed out of marriage entirely. The fact that it is a political issue in the first place is the source of the policy conflict. Unfortunately, we don't get a vote on that in this country.
The image I get when reading it, is pages and pages of the calendar turning. What does everything look like in 2032, and how did we get there?
"This is sloppy policy and erodes respect for rule of law."
It is important to remember that it is not laws which hold a society together. The glue is shared common values which the laws are expected to represent. This is the difference between "social engineering" and a "law abiding society".
The problem comes when laws and values diverge. A few examples. Most people would seemn to favor enforcing our immigration laws, the government will not do this. Immigration laws are flaunted. Prostitution, I think most people would favor some form of legalization. Drugs laws, I think most people would favor some lossening. "Prohibition" gave us "organized crime". Drugs have "high value" because they are illegal. In the big time, this gives us "drug lords". In the small time, this gives us muggings and various "property crimes".
As to gay marriage, we are far from reaching a consensus and thus, a law. I do not find the "pro" arguments compelling, and I note that the "con" arguments are derided, if not actually shouted down. This seems like "rule by mediarites".
People may say they want less government, but we all know when push comes to shove most people still desire a free lunch and will continue to vote for politicians who claim they'll provide it.
If we're going to accept the premise that the State has a role to play in marriage, then, per the 14th Amendment, we have to treat equally all those who want to be married in the eyes of the State. If the GOP wants to live up to its lofty billing of supporting liberty, then it should embrace equality under the law, which means it should support gay marriage.
IMO RI is too far gone. Despite ranking at or near the bottom in every category with respect to attracting businesses, and despite having an unemployment rate greater than the national average, and all the other strikes against us, the electorate put the same people back in power. Apparently the avg RI'er is happy with the current situation. And I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever.
I am troubled by the fact that many things complained of by proponents of gay marriage; hospital visitation, social security benefits, funeral arrangements, etc, are not emmoluments of marriage. Hospital visitation is not a state matter, it is determined by the institutions involved, The same may be said of funeral homes and who may make arrangements. Inheritence issues may be resolved by a will.
I sometimes feel it is all "in your face" arguments. Note I use the word "feel", because that is the impression I get. Nature being what it is, it is probably not safe to deny that a few gays are "born that way". But I suspect the vast majority have simply made a choice, for a large variety of reasons. That is why so much time and effort is spent in the discovery of the "gay gene", a search which has not been rewarded. I don't think having made a choice entitles you to a new civil right. Of course, respect for marraige has been on a downhill slope for at least a generation. I wonder why it is still valued.