Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another confirmation of Bush's isolationist policies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another confirmation of Bush's isolationist policies

    Eighty-five heads of state and government at the United Nations signed a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, healthcare and choice about having children.

    What did our President do? He refused to sign it because the statement included reference to "sexual rights."

    Looks like the Prez continues to insist that this country go it alone in anything having to do with equal rights for women and children. What's wrong with this picture?

    Here:http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101504I.shtml

    Miulang
    "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

  • #2
    Re: Another confirmation of Bush's isolationist policies

    That's not isolationism. That's pandering to his anti-woman, anti-choice base.
    http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Another confirmation of Bush's isolationist policies

      Originally posted by Linkmeister
      That's not isolationism. That's pandering to his anti-woman, anti-choice base.
      You're right, Link! Here's something else. As I was driving home from work this morning at 2 a.m. ( I had a service pack installation to do), I was tuned to one of those talk shows on the radio where they were discussing the brouhaha over the same sex marriage constitutional amendment that Bush wants to push through. Amidst all the usual blahblah mostly neocon blather, there was this one refreshing suggestion on how to totally get rid of the legal quagmire that surrounds the exemption of same sex couples and domestic partners from the right to inheritance and health care. This guy said (and it's so simple that it's brilliant), do away with marriage as a legal definition, period!

      Since marriage really is a religiously sanctioned ceremony and what you do when you get married is enter into a partnership, why not make that partnership be the same thing as setting up a corporation. After all, when you get divorced, isn't that like dissolving a partnership? That way, any two people could legally register as a partnership and be entitled to all legal rights. The federal tax system would no longer reward or punish "married" v. "unmarried" couples; if you wanted the exemptions, you would go register as a partnership. If marriage was your bag, then you could have that religious ceremony performed by whoever you wanted. But the key is, in order to get tax credits, you and your partner would have to register as a partnership. If kids came along, they would become members of the partnership; if there was a divorce, the same kinds of rules that currently govern the splitting of assets would still be in force.

      Someone (and I'm sure more than one person) has said that marriage should be considered a business transaction, with contracts (prenup and otherwise) the norm to protect each party proactively. Nothing worse than getting caught in the middle of a heated divorce where you have to deal emotionally with the prospect of divvying up your assets. I know there are people who marry "for love" but after the bloom is off the rose, what do you have?

      The reason this is a brilliant idea is because it would 1) separate church from state, 2) eliminate the bias toward heterosexual couples who had a religious ceremony in order to qualify for things like the right to inheritance and spousal rights and mean that couples who are same-sex or heterosexual but "living in sin" would also be protected under law.

      Even the conservative radio talk show host this morning couldn't disagree that it made sense!

      Miulang
      "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Another confirmation of Bush's isolationist policies

        This is an approach often advocated, but sticky in the implementation. Just on the federal level, there are 1,049 different laws that reference marital status and would have to be modified (as per the General Accounting Office, when asked about it by U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde in 1997). And then there are all the state laws as well. It would be a worthwhile, but monumental, task.

        Comment

        Working...
        X