YES! States should decide what’s best for their state.
6%
NO! Civil rights should be federally protected.
94%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
At Mondragon - both the mountain and the cooperative city - in Spain (written about in "Threshold" book)
From Screwed:
"Thom Hartmann’s book explains in simple language and with concrete research the details of the Neo-con’s war against the American middle class. It proves what many have intuited and serves to remind us that without a healthy, employed, and vital middle class, America is no more than the richest Third World country on the planet."
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
No! I live in the crazy state of texas, 5th generation, but i can not stand the cRaZy politics that go on here. Gov. Ann Richards and Austin are the best things that ever happened here. <#LOVE the state - just not the poliTICS (they r tics that will suck u dry)
Not sure that any government should be in the "m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e" business, it carries too much baggage with it. Meanwhile we should be reforming, adding and supporting many and various useful "family" or "communal" living arrangements. This includes "single-moms" banding together for support and task/expense-sharing, orphans, foster-children, foster-elders, communal group homes, homless-shelters; etc.. Our wasteful massive single-family homes are untenable for our projected high-energy-cost future.
While experiencing divorce, I searched our state laws. "Love" and "affection" are not mentioned anywhere, (except on Humane-Society auto-license-plates). Judging by the divorce process, "marriage" is about nothing but property -- splitting the sheets (and perhaps custody, if there are kids) -- that's all.
Were "marriage" really justified as a socially useful institution for procreation (more cannon-fodder for the state?), to be subsidized; then why pray tell, do we issue marriage-permits to 50-year-old Seniors?
Let the Churches or any other Social Support-Groups handle "Marriage" as a ritual relationship -- while having various governments subsidize living relationships where public or individual "benefits" and "rights" are involved.
I'll say that Civil Rights should not be left up to a popular vote.