Felt like a bit of a rant...
What should law ever have to do with how people commit themselves to relationships? I know many people who have gotten married "officially" merely to take advantage of tax and insurance benefits. The commitment to each other, and sometimes to a belief in a higher power, had already been made.
The easiest answer is to alter how taxes are calculated, and also to allow people the choice of who their insurance premiums will cover.
Since insurance companies are supposed to be private, they can offer lower premiums to people who maintain balanced health habits and charge more to those who don't. That can create competition between companies and competition can mean lower costs to the consumer, who then demands the best product for his money. But there's a lot of bureaucratic garbage that clogs up private filters. Baby steps in the right direction would at least involve allowing people to choose who their payments benefit, choose how to spend their own money.
"Moral" objections to either gay marriage or marriage that two people enter into without a specific church are often based on the idea that marriage is a sacrament or that marriage only exists as a commitment to God and to a person of the opposite sex in order to "bind a cord of three strands, with Christ in the middle." Sacraments, according to the Catholic church, offer people Grace from God. Easy solution here: if something like either of these is what you believe, you go to an institution that sees it your way. Leave other people alone to do the same.
If you want to argue that the world you live in would operate best if everyone was forced by law to conform to your moral code, go visit the countries where religious governments rule the populace and see how well that works. If the argument is then that they are operating by the incorrect moral code and that all you need to do is create a government where the right Christian one is put into place, I'd first argue that this is probably counter to the preachings of Jesus, in which I'm pretty well-versed, and second, I would just rather not be governed at all, by anyone, if possible. So this argument is much better taken up by someone who actually believes federal governmental leadership is necessary for strong communities, safe streets, decent housing and education for the poor, and fair prices in exchange for quality goods. I have alternative views on that, but slice me, garnish me, I'm done. For now. -------------->>>
In case anyone hasn't seen this, nothing's changed since the last election except Kerry is sort of less off-putting to look at than Gore, and Bush is pretty much exactly the same as always. It's funny.
An editorial plea against collectivism
The dangers of preaching to the choir: A critique of Fahrenheit 911(this is long and starts out with the weakest argument, but then builds to some interesting points, mainly that the narrow focus of the film makes it more of a personal attack than a balanced assessment of a system that's been flawed for many decades.)
LP candidate on gay marriage: Badnarik is kind of a mess, but can be interesting, and i like the way he sums up this issue.
I believe that every system of life, whether natural or induced by man, works on a pendulum. It swings far in one direction, speeds down to the center, then slowly swings back in the opposite direction, repeating the process ad infinitum. Well, then there's entropy. But whatever. The point is, we have things one way for awhile, in government, then we have em another. Only been a couple times in the past century that the call to vote was not actually a call to get rid of the incumbent. I feel entropy coming on when I can't tell much difference between the donkey guy and the elephant guy. Or at least a temporary stay in the dead center. But I'm just an observer.