when you are doing something besides blogging. Haven’t posted since Tuesday? Sheesh, I was really bugged after listening to my screeching.
Let’s see, SU took an overnight trip to one of her plantations, had to straighten out the natives. Funny how the house feels different when she isn’t there. 1 called, upset that Sec Def Gates is extending the tours of everyone in Iraq. Man, that is devastating news for Hero, he just needs to hang in there and she just needs to keep praying for his safety.
Spent a couple of days installing the the mb/processor combo I picked up last week. Went ahead and upgraded to Vista as well. It FLIES! Loving it, especially the searches in my Logos system. And Photoshop screams. Funny, I can’t get Windows Live Writer to run, interesting. Cobbled together a bunch of spare parts and built a new Linux box, using Ubuntu’s latest distro. Much improved over my last install of Ubuntu, still can’t hot swap USB devices. Just got to find the right driver. But, it DOES work with ATI’s Radeon 9600, that’s a major improvement.
I guess it’s my week to be a liberal over at LST. Decided to say something about state intervention in divorce and Bam!, I’m a liberal with hidden motives. Yeah, like I’d ever ditch SU. Please. Made me think about the whole state/marriage issue. Need to contemplate that further but right now, the question in my mind is, why does the state have a vested interest in issuing marriage licenses?
duhmoose says
April 16, 2007 at 7:26 ambigjolly, The State has a vested interest in marriage simply do to the perceived civilizing affect that families have. Families tend to move less, be more productive, be more stable, and give adults a stronger vested interest in security. These may not be true, or at least not as prevalent as they used to be, but according to my fairly liberal “Marriage Institution” professor in college, that was the original reasoning.
Bigjolly says
April 17, 2007 at 8:14 amI think that the State does have an interest in marriage, particularly in property division as a matter of contract law. What bothers me about the current push to place limits and requirements upon divorce is that the State must do so without infringing upon basic human rights.
And one of those rights must be the freedom to choose with whom we live. If all men are created equal and free, and if all men can choose to enter into a State sponsored property rights agreement (marriage), then it follows that all men should be able to remove themselves from that contract without the State trying to impose social limits. If the State were to apply property restrictions, I do think that would be within their purview. But not social. IMO
duhmoose says
April 25, 2007 at 8:04 pmWhat about the States interest in the well being of society at large? Not that I am in favor of a behavior police, but I think the strength of society is directly related to the strength of the family unit. And the ease at which that can be dissolved has an impact.