The historic precedent for acceptable social status – even inheritance rights - given same-sex relationships (from medieval Japan thru ancient Greece, the Roman gymnasium and empires in Africa) was interrupted by dominion of religious realms that established many cultural prohibitions, thorough study proves. The transformation from domain (royalism) to society (including our democratic republic and other forms of socialism) has overridden the edicts of former authorities, I argue, and the wisdom/sentiment of the people has been enlightened. I think that different American states have the duty to adjust features of legal contracts to suite their local contexts, but I argue that they cannot deny the civil rights that all law-abiding persons deserve (including the right to “marry” in the legal sense).
Manipulation of the regulatory background (revolving-door lobbying practices, for instance) and the debasement and disparaging of federal governance (except to impose ideological biases) have increased the intolerable risks undertaken for private interest/benefit at the expense of the majority of us, I fear. No party or faction can be permitted to challenge the guarantees and confidence/insurance deserved by all persons (no ‘too free to be obliged’ should be tolerated), I say.
Austere measures to strip equity from borrowers/debtors, for no other reason than to dismiss responsibility for their entitlements/dues as “customers” is no answer for the problems we face - unless another recession would, by further repressing wage-earner’s expectations, be helpful.
Unassailably highly tiered prosperity, gross advantage -disparity and unconscionable inequality of “wealth”/benefit are not necessary consequences of modern market-capitalism, some argue, as I surely must (but, my name is not Shirley). Not only are socio-economic incentives misplaced, but the 19-20th century “business model” is flawed, I think, which recent fiscal evidence proves (recessions), and our energy, education and industry/services will unavoidably transform (for practicable reasons), I expect.
Why, I wonder, do we give “status” to members (politicians, for instance) with “unpopular” socio-perceptual biases (preconceptions) or grant such members social salience; notwithstanding the meager credence (or aggregation of approval/concurrence) they enjoy and regardless of their perceptions having no hope of translation to - expectation of - relevance? Power, obviously, does not derive from the same attributions as other modes of social influence (authority, for instance), and produces different impression, different interpretation/ labeling and operates at different social “levels” differently. Unfortunately, the large scale consequences of forceful socio-political power regardless of low status (see: House of Representatives) is all too troubling.
Among-others, we stroll into ourselves eyes-down,
“don’t I know you”, was the first tweet.