Replies

Our exchanges are getting rather long so despite the many things I want to respond to. I'll try to be a little briefer. You state:

A good reason to have lower tax rates for married couples is to help those who are raising the next generation of taxpayers (like me, with 2 kids), other married taxpayers benefit as "free riders".

A good reason perhaps, but clearly not the only reason. If it were all about children then the benefits would all be tied to the existence of children and you would have no "free-riders". The tax deductions per dependent we enjoy ( I have two children myself) are the most obvious example of such help.

But benefits pertaining to probate, healthcare, criminal court testimony, just to name a few, obviously have no direct benefits to children. Our governments obviously see a value in marriage outside of procreation. Could it possibly be that it (theoretically us) values commitment, stability, fidelity?

Or perhaps it is this. (And all of you proposing the interesting concept of the gov no longer recognizing marriage at all, listen in). Both criminal and civil law recognizes the difference between family and non-family in many ways. Blood family ties are obviously identified and so is the concept of adoption. For the government to not recognize marriage is to ask it to see no legal difference between a man's wife and just any woman he's known for a while. You would be related to your kids but not your spouse. Talk about anti-family!

I think we can all be grateful that our laws recognize that the commitment of marriage forms a family that a married couple is related to each other - even without the existence of children. It amazes me that so many people hate homosexuals so much that they are willing throw out the whole institution of legally recognized marriage, just to keep the homosexuals out of it.

That is what it really boils down to here isn’t? You people don’t like fags and you don’t want then to get nuthin. And you don’t like “fags” because…it makes you uncomfortable? Cause your religion says its bad? I couldn’t help but notice WOSG that your two examples of Judicial tyranny both involved perceived slights against Christianity. Displaying the commandments in court! Only the most myopic Christian-centric thinkers can’t see how obviously that flies in the face of separation of church and sate and equal justice under the law. How fairly would you feel your trial was if you lost your case to an Islamite by a judge that had quotes from the Koran in his courthouse?

Tell you what, you keep the “fags” out of your religion, but keep your religion out of our civil policy OK?

"I couldn’t help but notice WOSG that your two examples of Judicial tyranny both involved perceived slights against Christianity. "

Since they are egged on by the ACLU and the ACLU hates Christianity and is militantly secularist, this is not surprising.The ACLU has successfully gotten a false and radical interpretation of the establishment clause (no way in heck does a nativity scene nor a single 10 commandments tablet constitute an 'establishment of religion' - they have forbidden the voluntary public expression of religion). The ACLU, founded by Communists, have throughout its history attempted to undermine a variety of traditional institutions including America's traditions of faith.

Even an even-handed atheist should be appalled at this abuse of our Constitution and laws, destroying freedom of religious expression harms free expression generally.

However, here is a catalog of other recent Judicial tyrannies:
- Forbidding the deportation of illegal immigrant felons, contrary to Federal laws on the matter;
- Attempting to stop a Constitutional election ie, the California recall election (ACLU behind that), an egregious attack on democracy akin to Venezuala's courts
- Throwing out a bill that protect preborn humans from being killed at the moment of delivery, aka, partial birth abortion ban. In general, the whole stream of 'substantive due process' decisions are based on nothing more than Judicial legislation, "whole cloth" construction of 'rights' without basis in Constitution and that were not at all in the text nor the intent of the 14th amendment.
- The attempt to force VMI to admit women. This was bad law on many levels. Do you think it a bit odd unisex schools are required only at military academies but not at eg Smith College, or Wellesley, etc. where Hillary attended? Is it even odder that a constitutional *amendment* was required to give women the vote and yet now miraculously the 14th amendment suffices to destroy any distinction in law wrt schooling?
- I'd add perhaps the overtly activist court in Florida that is "dying" (pun intended) to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo even *after* the Legislature of Florida has spoken to save her - but the jury is still out there. It would be egregious indeed for the judge to invoke some 'right to be killed by your guardian' as an ephemeral right above the right of parents and others to protect that life.

"Both criminal and civil law recognizes the difference between family and non-family in many ways."

Right.

Lastly, it is a complete and utter ad homimen to say the reason for defending traditional view of marriage is "hate" for homosexuals. Sorry, that is a tired old trick. Wrong.

I and many others would be quite happy to leave homosexuals alone if they left the rest of us alone as well, not intruding nor demanding the laws conform for their convenience. And I'd even surmise that some gays would agree with an appropriate distinction being made between man-woman marriage and other forms of 'partnership'. (One such gay called Mike Gallagher show yesterday; go figure).

"Tell you what, you keep the “fags” out of your religion, but keep your religion out of our civil policy OK? "

This is a non-sequitor. Why must religious views be forbidden from consideration? Why do you put Christianity in a worse position than Communism with respect to its influence on our policies? It is aribrary and makes no sense.

"Only the most myopic Christian-centric thinkers can’t see how obviously that flies in the face of separation of church and sate and equal justice under the law."

Please show me what provision in the Constitution is violated. Please

" How fairly would you feel your trial was if you lost your case to an Islamite by a judge that had quotes from the Koran in his courthouse? "

Uh huh. I guess nobody told you that Mohammed pictorial is in the Supreme Court building. Koran quotes have been in court-rooms.... WAKE UP!