Post #34,452
4/4/02 6:48:59 PM
|
Single mothers should get themselves a husband!
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44339-2002Mar31.html|Be a good girl]
|
Post #34,454
4/4/02 7:10:41 PM
|
There's an obvious explanation, though:
Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) said marriage is less important in determining whether families escape poverty than education. He accused Bush of latching onto an idea that is popular with the GOP political base, including conservative Christians, in an election year. "I can't help but believe this is a program sold at the prayer breakfasts around the country," Stark said. It's all part of the Compassionate separation of Church and State, expressed in that ... umm what did they use to call it? ..er Constitution thingie, a hopelessy nonAshcroftian document from the dim past. Ah.. found it; right under that copy of the PATRIOT Act.
|
Post #34,457
4/4/02 7:45:37 PM
|
Remember his last attempt?
The "faith-based" drive?
Sounded great. Right up until the Moonies and Scientologists were going to benefit from it.
This will go over great.
Right up to the point where CPS takes a child away from an abusive male who is being paid $100 a month to fuck momma and discipline the kids.
Once again, the world is a little too complex for Bush to understand.
|
Post #34,458
4/4/02 7:47:36 PM
|
Turning back the clock...
Ugh....here we go again! Using my tax dollars to fund the
wacko moral minority who use religion (not spirituality) and
tools like marriage to reverse all the steps forward that
women have made the last 30 years. Next they'll be telling
us that anyone opposed to marriage is a 'terrorist' and
undermining (their) core 'values'.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three children who have
been raised by single parents (due to one circumstance or
another) and they have turned out great! All three have
brilliant futures ahead. Their parents were very committed
to their success.
On the other hand, I can think of three other children who were
raised in traditionally married households. All three have problems
with drugs, the law, lack of education, lack of opportunities, etc.
In large part this is due to a lack of commitment, discipline, and
communication on the part of the parents.
There are good parents and bad parents -- married and single.
Parenting education is needed far worse than politically-based
marriage initiatives.
My $.02
|
Post #34,487
4/5/02 12:54:08 AM
|
On a tangent...
The 'Go get a husband' phrase was the reponse to an unmarried woman who wanted to undergo IVF treatment in Australia. At least she's been going through the courts and winning the right to undergo IVF treatment, turning the clock forward, as it were.
Article is [link|http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/02/1017206202238.html|here], but will probably be archived to a Pay For It version in a couple of days.
On and on and on and on,
and on and on and on goes John.
|
Post #34,494
4/5/02 4:49:33 AM
|
If a grad student in 'government' made such a proposal
the ridicule might be formally accompanied with a review of social, political and theological categories: and how they interact (and don't).
When a Selected Resident makes such a proposal: why shux, we Know who his buddies are, what cockamamie stuff has already been tried and: that there is no imaginable limit to what Other and next cockamamie stuff shall be floated.
So far.. we gots the big clock at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set 5 minutes closer to midnight. What was that other clock? Oh Yeah:
2 YEARS! 9 Months and about 6.3 days til: Inauguration after the NEXT election (or Selection, as the case may be, and assuming there is one..)
Meanwhile: try to save energy to prepare for the Next fumigation of that poor Oval Office rug.. there can be stains worse than semen on that rug, by 2004.
Ashton
Can the Pray for Welfare Millennium Act, be far behind?
|
Post #34,514
4/5/02 10:12:33 AM
|
I think it is a reaction to the 60's welfare programs
Back when for a family to get assistance there could not be a man capable of working living at home. This created a system of single moms. Instead of fixing the problem, society found a way to redefine the family. The backlash in the 80's about welfare queens hurt those who had serious needs. People were found to be abusing the system and welfare reform was started. Trouble is the poor are always with us. Married people dont have to get a divorce any more to get aid, but likewise a single mom shouldnt be forced to get married to get assistance. There is two types of assistance, temporary with those who get into a bad patch and permanent for those who cannot for whater reason make their way to full self sufficiency. Government has done a poor job of helping either.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #34,466
4/4/02 10:26:25 PM
4/4/02 10:27:48 PM
|
At least eliminate the "single incentives"
I've known people in the past who would have gotten married but didn't because they'd have lost "single parent" benefits.
Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Edited by SpiceWare
April 4, 2002, 10:27:48 PM EST
|
Post #34,469
4/4/02 10:51:24 PM
|
I know I'm reaching but.....
Isn't this a little afoul of the separation of church and state provisions?
Think about it before you blast me.
The best scale for an experimental design is ten millimeters to the centimeter.
|
Post #34,505
4/5/02 9:38:06 AM
|
They can't afford to admit that
If they did, they would realize they have no standing to regulate marriage -- polygamy/polyandry, same-sex, etc. If there were ever a widespread realization that the government has no business whatsoever to have anything to say about marriage, the entire tax code, insurance regs, adoption policy, domestic abuse/disturbance guidelines, custody law -- it would all have to be re-written.
IMO "marriage" is a religious/spiritual activity. All the tax/comunity property/insurance issues should be handled by contract law. Custody gets tricky, but government has shown no hesitation in wading into it before now.
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #34,512
4/5/02 10:01:49 AM
|
Ditto.
There should be TWO processes:
#1. >IF< you want a religious ceremony, or not, it's up to you and that religion. It isn't required for #2. By the same token, the government does not have to grant any rights under #2 to anyone going through this step.
#2. The person-to-person contract stating that person A is "married" to person B and that all property, medical decisions and so forth are to be handled as such. Until the formal dissolution of the contract.
So, the government cannot tell you who you can or cannot "marry" in the "church" of your choice. You could "marry" your car if you wanted to.
But the government does not have to recognize such "marriages" as it recognizes "marriage" now.
Unless you fill out the correct forms.
And if it is a contract, why does the government care with whom you contract?
As long as said person can legally enter into this contract.
So, the Catholic Church is only going to perform certain marriages (divorced is a big no no).
But the government can enforce a contract between two people no matter how many times they've been divorced.
So, "marriage" as a sacrament is still as religious as ever.
And person-to-person contracts are still enforced, the same as we used to.
Get the Government out of the Church.
-AND-
Get the Church out of Contract Law.
|
Post #34,536
4/5/02 3:17:34 PM
|
But, the state governments do care who you marry.
- There are minimum age restrictions.
- There are, or at least used to be, medical restrictions, i.e. must not have venereal disease.
- There are consanguinity restrictions, e.g. double first cousins cannot marry.
None of these are religion based, just practical restrictions to avoid likely problems (for your own good). Requiring monogamy is possibly a religious restriction. Some government does record the marriage. Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #34,541
4/5/02 4:30:23 PM
|
As long as they can legally enter into a contract.
There are minimum age restrictions. As long as s/he is capable of signing a legal contract (usually at age 18, I think). There are, or at least used to be, medical restrictions, i.e. must not have venereal disease. I don't see why the government needs to "protect" me from this. As far as I'm concerned, this is another example of government being too involved in the bedroom. There are consanguinity restrictions, e.g. double first cousins cannot marry. Marry? I don't see why not. Children? The risk is high (depending upon direct blood relationship) for genetic defects. Is it the government's job to prevent genetic defects? Does the government take an interest in the reproductive habits of other carriers of "bad" genetic code? Clearing the past religious clutter from the contract would be a great idea. You could, in advance, assign financial responsibility for any children conceived during the contract period and so on. You could even do away with "prenuptial" contracts. What would be the purpose of a "pre-contract" contract? If either party has specific pre-existing resources that they do not wish to have included for consideration in the contract, then they can include the required verbiage in the "marriage" contract. Requiring monogamy is possibly a religious restriction. True. I don't see any reason why multiple husbands/wives (even multiples of both, one guy marries 3 wives, and two of those wives have other husbands) couldn't be handled under contract law. It would make for some VERY interesting cases in the event of a divorce.
|
Post #34,564
4/6/02 5:07:17 AM
|
Marrying a cat
I knew a guy at Dartmouth College who got the appropriate certifications to perform marriages in Vermont. (He married a couple of grad students that I know of.)
After reading the statutes and procedures, he used to claim that if you wanted, he could successfully marry you to your cat. His definition of success included filing all necessary paperwork and receiving an official marriage license from the State of Vermont. It did not include standing up to any possible court case later.
He was somewhat disappointed that he couldn't find anyone who wanted to test his theory out by actually marrying their cat... (I can still remember him saying, "Well if you don't like cats, what about your dog? I do dogs as well!")
Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
|
Post #34,694
4/8/02 9:55:59 AM
|
That's got to be the ultimate "out of context" quote
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #34,722
4/8/02 1:33:16 PM
|
Practical problem: who raises the children?
|
Post #34,729
4/8/02 1:50:48 PM
|
And do you toilet or litter box train them?
|
Post #34,730
4/8/02 1:54:14 PM
|
Toilet, of course
See [link|http://www.karawynn.net/mishacat/toilet.shtml|here]
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #34,742
4/8/02 3:06:23 PM
|
Since this is Politics: what could you do if you found out
that one kid-kitten was becoming a Republican?
|
Post #34,590
4/6/02 3:52:15 PM
|
Why should they?
If they know who knocked them up, they can try to get paternity. If they had mutliple partners (the slut syndrome) a DNA test may be in order.
Besides married couples pay more in taxes than single people. We have a marriage tax, which makes some people decide not to get married. This way the tax codes are encouraging young women not to get married.
In a perfect world, mothers are married and have a husband, in the real world that is not always the case. Call it different morals, different ethics, what comes around goes around, etc.
When I got engaged to my wife, my grandmother asked if I was living with her. When I said "No", she said "Why not? Everyone else is doing it?" But I lived at my mother's house before I got married. Then we moved into a house my wife was renting, and then later bought a house with a morage in the end of 1998.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
