by 
We know that they do it, so why do we act surprised?
When President George W. Bush ran for office, he ran as a “Compassionate Conservative” that wanted to stay away from “nation building.” Then this man proceeded to not veto any legislation until the Democrats took power, ballooning the government—and, oh yeah, there was that war in Iraq.
Pres.-Elect Obama made similar promises to his supporters. He’s in favor of the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA), which would invalidate all state laws regarding abortion and make abortion legal for all nine months of pregnancy.
He’s made statements against the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed by Pres. Bill Clinton and makes it so that other states do not have to recognize a same-sex marriage that was performed in another state.
However, now that he’s won, he’s going back on his statements about these and some of his spending plans because most of the time there’s a huge difference between what a candidate says on the campaign trail to get elected and what they’ll actually do.
I mean, when California can pass a Constitutional Amendment backing traditional marriage, the Democrats would be fools to overturn DOMA, but you can be sure that the enraged gays will attempt to demand it, even as they are now boycotting things owned by Mormons.
This is, however, part of the good checks that we can look forward to. The Democrats are going to be leery of certain topics because (just like the Republicans in 2000) they want to not just have power for the next two years, but for a generation. And picking fights with things that the majority oppose is a recipe for losing power.
Wait – Obama’s really thinking of changing his position on FOCA?
See how much news you miss when you spend 6 days straight at your craft table?
Rachels last blog post..My Rant for the Week… and An Announcement
I’ve heard there are some Christian groups who disagree with the Government having a say in marriage so fervently that they refuse to legalize their marriages. Bravo to those ones.
There are only a few reasons for the Government to recognize marriage: taxes, dependent status, insurance, legal contracts, and immigration. (Not necessarily an exhaustive list)
For the sake of legal contracts, dependent status and insurance, these could be done through the free market, with two people who have no relation as legal contracts can be written according to any desired specifications.
As for taxes, perhaps if the government only followed constitutional premises for their taxation this would be a moot point.
Immigration is the sticky point for me. As a man who is trying to bring his bride from a third world country (from where the Government makes it clear it does NOT want to allow people to enter the USA) I see the importance of having a legal recognition of a relationship between two people that the government would officially and legally recognize.
However I suppose that if our country wasn’t such a closed-society (They have fingerprint and retinal scans at customs now, did you know that?) we would do like the Statue of Liberty says and invite the “Poor” and “Huddled masses.”
But I suppose we aren’t the America of our founders, no longer the bastion of immigration we were during the early 20th century. Not much of a bright city on a hill these days, aye?
Arthurs last blog post..Confiscation Through Inflation
Yes, we did know all this. As far I am concern, I am interested what Obama will do for business in this economical crisis.
IT Trade Onlines last blog post..WTS: 486 P3 AND P4 COMPUTERS @ .0225 CENTS A MHZ