Because married couples provide a benefit to the State.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Similarly, so do people who speak out in favor of the government as opposed to those who speak out against it. Should we give special tax breaks to vocal Bush supporters, and perhaps tax penalties to vocal Bush opposition? Same could be done for the local governments. How about money bonuses to people who vote for the incumbent?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Well, that'll teach me to try to have a conversation with Slon.

Should have remembered.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Pro-creators are just treated better by gov't. The Conservative Party in Canada only won their minority gov't by offering to pay off all couples with babies to the tune of about $1700 a year until the child is 6. And they got the votes of all those people. Little did these couples know that the Conservatives also closed down and cut off funding for many daycares around the country, so there goes the savings anyway.

I think it's bullshit. I think Gov't has absolutely no business in people's personal lives, legislating their opinions all over us all the time. And they definitely have no business telling people who they can fall in love with. A marriage contract by the gov't should naturally be issued to any two adults who want to get married, and churches can go their own way. And if they want to get involved in politics, than let them pay taxes like everyone else.

It's a matter of: should the government socially engineer the behavior of its subjects based on what it arbitrarily deems as "good" or "bad."

Drug use fits into this category.

Clearly, you are unwilling to apply your logic equally to other arguments in the same field as the one you justified by said logic, meaning that you use a double standard and that even you have little, if any, confidence in said logic.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Didn't the SC rule that folks couldn't just travel to MA to get hitched?

But the whole thing is irrelevant if the DOMA is held as constitutional.

No, When the Mass Supreme Court ruled that marriage licenses could not be denied on the grounds of gender, Romney dug up a 1913 law that said Massachusetts couldn't marry people where the marriage would be illegal in their state of residence.
This is the law they are in the process of repealing.
This has prevented the issue of equal protection from being brought before the courts, because Massachusetts gay marriage was limited to people from just a few states that would recognize the marriage, Now that California legalized gay marriage there have been a lot of out of state couples getting married there. Now Massachusetts will marry anyone from anywhere, as long as the marriage is valid in massachusetts.

And Massachusetts expects gay marriages by out of staters to generate 100 million dollars/year in additional revenue for Massachusetts businesses.
P'town should be boomin'.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Okay fair enough (i'll take your word for all that).

But while the DOMA stands, then as i understand it, no state has to recognise one another's marriages do they?

So even if they get married in MA, when they head bck to Iowa, Iowa doesn't have to value the paper its written on do they?

"it's subjects"? What nation are we talking about here? Last I checked the US was composed primarily of citizens.
We are, if anything, "socially engineering" our own behavior.

Or, perhaps more aptly, the majority may be attempting to direct the behavior of the whole. That may or may not be a desirable situation, but it's best to get the terms right. Unless those currently in power can be shown to either (A) have achieved power against the will of the people or (B) be actively thwarting the will of the people, then it isn't a question of what the government does to the people; it's what the people do to themselves.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

I expect the courts will begin hashing out the "official" answer to those questions fairly soon now...

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Probably yeah.

Tbh i wouldn't be too fussed if other states had to start recognising some of the marriages of southern states wherre some still don't even have a minimum age requirement or marriage along with places like Nebraska etc.

I'm gonna' guess it's because your folks still claim you as a dependent...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

And I'm going to guess that you're trolling, as usual.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

So we're both right.

Cool...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Last you checked...where? If you looked at some of the US laws currently on the books, I'd say the government interferes more than enough to place us at the level of "subject" rather than "individual."With the help of the retarded majority, the US government is doing that.If people vote themselves into slavery, they would certainly be called slaves by many rather than citizens, despite having voted themselves into that position.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.