No, no Keynesian here. How do you figure that consumption doesn't cause production? All rational economic theory shows that it does. Of course, there needs to be resources to allow consumption, thus you have to have increasing wealth, which only occurs with increasing efficiency of production. Thus, as people become more productive, they are worth more and get paid more. With more pay, there is generally more consumption (although depending on the interest rate, there may be more savings, but that has rarely been the case). The more consumption causes an imbalance in the supply, which results in more production - either from the same suppliers at a higher price, or with more producers which drives the prices back down. Too much supply drives the price down, making the profitability of the items less desirable, and tending to decrease supply.

Had a bit of wine tonight? Or maybe Tequila? Goods are produced to meet demand. If the demand is there (purchases), the goods will be there as well.

It's not. But so many want it to be. Both the straights and the gays. But neither is correct. This is not a fed gov't issue.

See my other comment. When you spend, you consume, which requires production. No, it's not a perfect measure, but it's adequate enough.

The fallacy is that spending by gov't programs has no detrimental effects. In fact, that money must come from somewhere - either out of the pockets of current taxpayers, which then don't have the money to spend themselves (thus a net decrease in spending since there is inherent inefficiency in gov't spending), or it is at the expense of future spending which just mortgages the economy of our children.

Not such a specious argument - spending requires goods to be purchased.

I feel so violated. ;-)

You seem to have overlooked: "The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage. "

Note the word "also."

That's from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...

I even explained to Hiraghm that it's his god that creates homosexuals.

Who are we to judge his god's creations?

Well... Kids need to be protected.

But for consenting adults I can only think that those who are trying to control others are somehow perverted. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I think voyeurism is kinda sick.

Robbie, there is a big difference between what I would like to see and what I will do.

I won't "try" to carry outside my issuing jurisdiction except in those places where there is a reciprocal agreement in place.

But, although I appreciate your insistence upon State's rights we do need some standardization from Federal government or there will be chaos. The best example is gun control.

However, in marriage specifically, as a mobile society someone married in MA should not have to get another contract when they move to another state.

That's why the Federal Government needs some power. Also states should not be able to set salaries, or any other part of contracts with government employees, including military. Again, chaos.

Driving is another example. If I want to go to Chicago I don't need to take a driving test in Chicago just do visit. They accept my home state license.

But the laws have to have a basis in powers enumerated in the constitution. Marriage isn't one of those powers. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment clearly is.

It is more than "somewhat," and is well demonstrated with economic spending related to age/productivity.

Yes, just try to concealed carry with your permit from your local state in Chicago, NYC, or Wash DC and see how much credit your local CC permit is given.

I'll say it again, Marriage is not a federal issue. It should be eliminated from all federal policies and regulations. It is at most a state issue, and if not specifically enumerated by a state constitution, then it is an issue of the people and should be dealt with via contract law - period.