On Tue, March 27, 2007 4:10 pm, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > DJA wrote: >>.. >> Sorry. In the real world that just does not seem to be the norm. And if >> marriage were not a government-sanctioned institution (i.e. one needs >> official permission to both marry and unmarry) >>.. > > I believe I have seen words like > > ~"..it being in the state's interest to encourage [marriage or family or > something-like-that].." > > as justification for putting marriage benefits (supposedly [1]) into tax > policy. > > So my questions: > > 1) why is it in the country's interest? > - what are the objectives? > - are the original objectives still relevant? > - are there different objectives now? > 2) is marriage (the traditional meaning) the only effective way to > accomplish the state's objectives? > > > ... > > [1] I guess there have been situations where it turns out to be a > marriage penalty. > > Regards, > ..jim, >
Lots of pious things get assumed and not questioned. This is one of them. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
