Posted By: hobie <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 30 October 2008, 12:06 a.m.
In Response To: Diversion: HOW A CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION WILL AFFECT EVERY FAMILY IN THE LAND (RumorMail) A Reader wrote:
: Marriage is a religious ceremony. It has nothing to
: do with government. The government should have NOTHING
: to do with marriage. And should not have the ability
: to pick and choose who should and should not get married.
(I couldn't agree more.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
: Please spend your time and energy on saving our nation,
: not on diversions.
I empathize with you on that. But what you've done here is 'nail' the very heart of the problem we've been suffering under.
Chiefly this: THAT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT. IT'S THE CORPORATION.
As you've said, marriage has nothing to do with government - unless one is "joined" under a Corp. US "marriage" ceremony involving a so-called judge (Corp. US administrator) and specific _legalisms_ that go along with it.
Why is this a political issue at all? Because, under the Corporation, there are privileges (mistakenly referred to as "rights") that Corp. US extends to its "employees". Some of those 'rights' are denied to same-gender couples even if the two had managed to find a church in which to marry - and it's thought, perhaps quite reasonably, that there's something "unfair" about this discriminatory practice on the part of Corp. US.
I expect I'd agree with that - but it's beside the point.
The real issue is, "Why the heck is there a populated Corp. US while the original jursdiction government offices remain vacant?"
And:
- Why is our 'money' debt-based instead of backed by precious metals as referred to in the Constitution?
- Why is our 'money' issued and regulated by a private entity (the so-called 'Federal Reserve') instead of government's fulfilling their specific responsibility in that regard?
- If someone did come up with a plan for "universal health coverage", what kind of "health coverage" are they talking about? Would things like chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathic approaches, herbalism, nutritional supplementation, etc., be included? Or is this really a disguised lifelong "subsidy" for Big Pharma? Does the Constitution even _allow_ for this, or is it all a plan by Corp. US to insure we continue to "need" them to make our decisions and choices for us?
- How can it even be up for consideration that immigrants who have entered the country illegally should be able to get drivers' licenses? (Hint: The so-called "driver's license" is a feature of Corp. US, not a feature of the original jurisdiction Constitution.)
And so on.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
If you're gonna vote anyway, please read oliverhaddo's statement about what he plans to do:
HERE'S WHAT YOU AND I CAN DO:
oliverhaddo -- Wednesday, 29 October 2008, 11:20 p.m.
...and for lots more food for thought on this matter, try here:
http://www.teamlaw.org
--hobie