@nxnn well said. it's going to be very hard to take government out of the "definition of marriage" game but yet leave them in the "enforcing marriage game" ... it won't happen. if their hand is in the pot at the tail end of things, they'll want it at the start of it too.
@nxnn I 100% agree with you. However...at some point down the line, to the contracts of which you speak...what entity protects those? some sort of legal/court system, no? Therein lies the issue of government never being out of the marriage game.
@nxnn At this juncture, willing things to your spouse...no. nothing's stopping you. Unless your spouse happens to be male and you live in one of the 39 states that don't support same-sex marriages... :-/
@nxnn I'M not saying you now owe less taxes...the GOV'ment is saying that. I agree it should be changed to how life insurance works. However, if you want to change what you're talking about...you have to change a helluva lot of laws for that to happen. :)
@nxnn unfortunately...in our current state of things...they DO have to do with marriage. Idealistically, it would be great if it were simply just a legal contract between two individuals, regardless of sex. That's not the case. You want to change it? That's a lonnng road.
@nxnn * still being defined in most states as between a "man and a woman." that's the issue. Legal term "marriage" is then thusly protected under law & same-sex couples can't legally be "married," they do not have access to the aforementioned rights and privileges.
@Einar5107 agreed. except the "minimum" should be changed to "standard of living" or something...either way, it's what's fair per market value. I'm actually for a flat tax with poverty levels and size of family built in as safeguards, sooo for the tax question, I say 15%
@nxnn wait...huh? Can you rephrase? I'm having a hard time understanding your question the way it's currently worded. For the record, I don't think we should accept this bs any longer...but most people are too apathetic to change anything.
@nxnn not federally run higher ed, no. I thought you were talking strictly about the employees...not spending/funding. The gov't should spend on what's essential but the govt isn't run like a business. We got off that train a lonnnnng time ago.
@nxnn look at Higher Ed institutions as an example. I'm considered "non-essential" because my title doesn't have Director or Dean or VP, etc. in front of it. Just because they're "non-essential" doesn't mean they don't hold value.
@BigFish imho, No national interests or threats to us...YET. If we strike and Assad falls, where do these chemical weapons fall? Most likely to Al Qa'aida, right? So, really, it's a no win situation. They both hate us.
@BigFish Oh, I think punishing those who use chemical weapons against their own people IS an option. Just not sure why it has to be through military force, ya know? There are other diplomatic efforts. Diplomacy hasn't even been TRIED yet. We've balked. At all levels of this.
@BigFish 'Murica? Where we kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong. Didn't know about the snipers. That's shitty. However, why must we engage ourselves in the civil war in Syria? In your opinion...
@hereandnow also, I would expect the UN to hold whomever accountable through war crimes/crimes against humanity. I just don't see a threat from Syria attacking the American way of life..at least not at this juncture.
@hereandnow I think the key is the term nationS...from what I know, France is the only one supporting this strike right now. So, until the UN has finished their investigation, a military strike isn't necessary.
@nxnn right. Asad has said that the Middle East is a powder-keg & a US attack/intervention will certainly bring a shit-storm of trouble for everyone. Feels like an empty threat though...but then again, pre-9/11 intel also seemed like that at the time
@nxnn What I'm NOT seeing in any of these conversations, (especially with McCain, Graham, Obama, et. al), is a shred of diplomacy. The message they're sending imho is "you killed people...so we're going to respond by killing people!"
@nxnn I don't think your missing anything...but as with most things political, it's never that simple/black & white. I'm certain there are complexities at stake which need to be well-thought out and discussed.
@nxnn the US doesn't have much of a threat to our borders from Syria. From a global perspective, crimes have been committed against humanity. That's a case for the UN to handle...Plus, how many more innocent civilians will die as a result of our military forces?