I don't get you, really I don't.

So, you're saying that you find the notion of a progressive tax intrinsically unfair?

When you get down to it, there's no taxation scheme - including no taxation at all - that's "fair". Every one of them fails to meet some standard or another. Of course, what makes no sense to me about your stance is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are in support of a progressive tax. Slightly different implementations, but they're still using spaces. And you object to spades. So I'm not sure how you're making a differentiation here.

In terms of the civil rights issue... well, I find it telling that it didn't even occur to you what I was talking about. There's a portion of the population which does not have several basic rights in most states, and may have some of those rights taken away, and this doesn't strike you as a problem?

And, historically, many states DID adopt laws which restricted free movement. For example, from Indiana's constitution, "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution."
There have also been (though I apologize, I'm failing to find the reference) laws against bringing girls across state lines for the purpose of teaching.

In this light, it is not an exaggeration to expect similar restrictions on gays, restrictions which would serve to keep gays, or others who aren't of that particular religious subset, from being able to practice everyday freedoms. Unfortunately, those who would seek to restrict the liberty of others don't ever "live and let live".

Now, you've got me on the drug thing. I am in agreement that the federal government is acting in an oppressive fashion there. But, well, if I had to choose between religious freedom and recreational drugs, I'll take religion.
Oh, wait. I *do* have to choose between religious freedom and recreational drugs.

I suppose it depends on what you see as the role of the federal government. I think one of its most important roles is to step in when a state enacts laws to oppress its populace - when a state, for example, violates the US Constitution. We could indeed argue until we're blue in the face about when that occurs. However, I firmly stand by that federal power, and assert further that it is supported by the US Constitution.

Of course, the horse is well dead now - we've both long since voted anyway.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options