First, from CNSNews (hat tip to Ann Coulter), “The California Energy Commission has proposed requiring thermostats that allow the government to control the temperature of homes and businesses in case of high energy prices or shortages, a measure that some critics are calling “draconian.”
–
Next, a couple stories from Hot Air: cause for concern with the Brits & organ donation, and a Boston lib is hoppin’ mad that the free market is taking a crack at health care.
–
The Left’s worship of privacy and choice seems conspicuously absent, doesn’t it…
–
Next, a couple stories from Hot Air: cause for concern with the Brits & organ donation, and a Boston lib is hoppin’ mad that the free market is taking a crack at health care.
–
The Left’s worship of privacy and choice seems conspicuously absent, doesn’t it…
Conservative Standards 
Isn’t telling people who they can and cannot marry kind of similar?
LikeLike
Civil marriage is a basic societal institution. But if you want to take the big govt. route, your solution would be to abolish civil marriage entirely – not to expand it further.
LikeLike
There have been plenty of “basic societal institutions” that have been reformed, expanded, and abolished over time.Slavery, for instance. You’re going to have to explain how getting government out of marriage altogether would be taking the big government route.While you’re at it consider, would you rather the government tell you, for your and society’s own good, what your thermostat should be set at or who you could marry?I’m uncomfortable with both. You?
LikeLike
Slavery pops into your mind when discussing same-sex marriage? Thanks, that’s a handy reference point for how reasonable you are…“You’re going to have to explain how getting government out of marriage altogether would be taking the big government route.”I didn’t mean the gay marriage side was “big government.” In retrospect, I can see how the wording could be confusing (then again, given your comments on my education post, I’m not inclined to believe you’re bothering to read my words very carefully).What I meant by “if you want to take the big govt. route” was, “if you want to look at the govt-size aspect of the issue.” In other words, I wasn’t putting the “big govt route” against the “small govt route;” I was talking about the “big govt route” as opposed to the “liberty route,” the “religious route,” etc. Does that help?None of us want the government to tell us “who we can marry.” I don’t want the government busting up gay marriage cerimonies, keeping gays from living under the same roof, or meddling in what gay couples call there relationships. However, I don’t believe the government has any obligation to slap the term “marriage” onto their relationships, either.
LikeLike