@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:Just because Republicans who are big donors lobby does not mean they are pushing bribes.
Good gravy, David, they are Republicans.
If everyone who lobbied was not allowed to try to convince others,
none of us could be discussing opinions here.
The facts r unclear. Our knowledge is incomplete.
From what we have, I don 't see that we can figure out
whether the Senators sold their votes or not.
From my personal perspective,
men of the male gender r physically repugnant (including myself).
I cannot understand Y
anyone 'd want to touch one,
but that is
none of my business.
Everyone has as much right to his or her own opinion.
Its a matter of personal preference.
Its a matter of Individual rights,
the same as your right to choose your favorite
color.
Its not a matter of democracy.
LET THE RECORD INDICATE that when I studied the statutory law
and the common law of NY (the NY Domestic Relations Law),
I felt sick to my stomach at reading the notion
that something as
low and
abhorrent as a
government
pretended to have jurisdiction to interfere in our personal relations
concerning marriage, even to determing
WHO can get married
(but I had to admit that there was so
much, fighting -- such fiendish,
diabolical strife between spouses that thay needed impartial referees).
ANYWAY: America is supposed to be
"the Land of the
Free and the Home of the
Brave";
that is
not just a
SONG. Its supposed to be our way of life.
Accordingly, I believed then and now that marriage shoud be
fully libertarian, such that "
consensus facit legum"; i.e.,
it shoud be
1OO% governed by the contracts that the parties
themselves devise, whose terms the courts shoud
mechanically apply.
Everyone shoud be free to "screw the pooch" if the pooch is willing.
Ergo, I advocate
1OO% laissez faire freedom of marriage, including
any number of parties thereto n all genders, under any conditions.
The courts shoud be
divested of any jurisdiction to interfere
beyond the contractally expressed intentions of the parties.
David
