🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4iuvfn$27e@boulder.earthnet.net>,
Bob Cormack <bob@compopt.com> wrote:
>In article <4iujk2$1rs@peabody.colorado.edu>, thomassm@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (Elusis) says:
>
>>Let's take government out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms?  Not 
>>while *I'm* still alive and kicking.
>>
>                                                                        
>This seems like a good place to repeat my original question:  What business
>has government got in being involved in the act of marriage at all?
>I can only offer my own opinions (which I won't repeat), but when most
>of us can agree on the answer, and that answer is one that should
>obviously apply to same-sex couples, then your battle will be won.
>By simply assuming the answer you most favor to this question without
>truly discussing it, you don't get very far.                   

Marriage is a legal contract, *not* simply an emotional and spiritual 
one.  By definition, the government is already involved.

If the government writes tax laws, affords welfare etc. based on, allows 
state and federal judges to base rulings on, and governs the terms of 
divorces under marital status, then what is the government if not 
involved in marriage?  It is simply a legal agreement similar to 
incorporation; the former ties together personal effects and the latter 
ties together business effects.

Colorado can't refuse to recognize Articles of Incorporation from an 
out-of-state business simply because the activities or products of the 
business are seen as detrimental to capitalism, can it?  Not hardly.

Elusis
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    + Don't try to out-weird me. I get stranger things than you free      +
   + with my breakfast cereal.  +  Push the button, Frank.  +  ENFX      +
  + All of us have a bit of the vampire and a bit of the nightingale.   +
 + Pro-woman, pro-family, pro-choice + Look out baby, I'm at high tide +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++