If you married your wife, that would be your wife.
If you married your guy, that would be your guy wife.
If you married your first cousin who had a sex change, it could (if the Hartford legislature passes the bill) quality as a gender wife.
What gender or wife is that?
When does this stop?
How far do we go?
Why don't we all marry each other and call it a day? -- a love fest or "love in" will end all wars.
The CT General Assembly is about to perpetrate another attack on the sanctity of marriage to say nothing of love as defined by the common moral authority of common law and society.
The least we could do is put this to a referendum vote to verify majority consent.
But wait we didn't authorize (November 2008) the Constitutional Convention when would have made the voter referendum possible. What are we do do?
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
CT Constitutional Convention Needed Now!
In fall 2008 CT voters did not elect to have a state constitutional convention as they could have. Few politicians ever acknowledged the opportunity and to a large extent did not endorse the concept when they even spoke of it.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)