Index of SPPS Budget Discussion
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html
_________________________________________
Something has struck me in reading these posts that I think
needs to be pointed out. It is that our legal system is ever
evolving. At issue before the courts right now is whether or
not US citizens can be required to "carry their papers" and present
them upon demand, a la Nazi Germany. The government, in the form
of the state of Nevada, says yes. Some citizens rights groups say
no. The Supreme Court has heard their arguments. It will present
a ruling very shortly.
The point of this example is that our legal system is ever
changing. What seems impossible as little as ten years ago, is
now assumed to be the norm. This bears on the current issue of
the Anti-Gay Marriage amendment to the state and US
constitutions. However permanent we might like [or fear] an
amendment to the state constitution banning homosexual unions
to be, its really a question of the whether or not the majority of
the current population disapproves of gay marriage enough to
actually pass a constitutional amendment against it. Laws, and
even constitutional amendments, can be changed. Prohibition,
and the Amendment XVIII that established it, are now long gone.
Several other amendments, generally forming the Bill of Rights
have been so eroded as to be virtually nonexistent.
To answer Chuck Repke on his point that marriage is a 50/50
division, I have to say -- in this country, yes. But that is not
true in all countries. In nations where polygamy and even
polyandry are accepted, other laws dictate the division of
wealth upon the death of a spouse. And as superior as some of
us might like to think ourselves to be, these countries have
somehow managed to exist for hundreds, or even thousands,
of years. So if we reduce marriage to no more than a form of
partnership, perhaps we could work out some laws that govern
the redistribution of the wealth of a deceased or divorced
person. We have over ten million Mormons and Muslims in the
United States and this number will almost certainly continue
to rise sharply as time passes. If we can accept homosexual
unions, can we not learn to tolerate forms of polygamy and
polyandry that have been around for centuries, or even thousands
of years?
Just some thoughts. BTW, for those who have not figured it
out, I support the Defense of Marriage Act, but I am against a
constitutional amendment on the issue. Anyway . . . Cheers, all.
Brett Sprangel
East Side
_____________________________________________
SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27
Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
