Thusly, if two individuals of the same legal sex wish to get married then there should be no legal objection. In fact the state should protect that right by legally endorsing it. Scalia should recognize that the constitution is a sacred document also. And that he is sworn to uphold its principles.

Allowing Gay’s to marry in no way shape or form attacks or otherwise maligns your freedom of religion. That particular right ends at your self. You may follow and preach whatever you damn well please, even hate if your heart desires it, thusly is the spirit of the First Amendment. If people choose to listen to your ramblings that’s their religious freedom. But at no point does the act of gay marriage infringe on you in any way. It doesn’t concern you or your community. The Church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages and the law shouldn’t force it, but The Law SHOULD recognize gay marriage as a legal entity.

The freedoms and equalities that make this nation so great apply to everyone (except illegal immigrants, not them). Our Constitution was designed to be a living and breathing document because our forefathers understood that as time passed it would have to change to reflect society.

To Marry in the eyes of the law is everyones right. If you want to deny someone religious marriage go ahead. If you’re that bothered by gays getting married then make a choice and move away. They’d love you in the south.

Protests may make the participants feel like they’ve accomplished something but they aren’t going to do much to sway these politicians.

How about trying to get some support from the community organizations that have some influence with local politicians? Kruger in particular needs to know that there is some local support for this sort of legislation. Golden, OTOH is not likely to change his position under any circumstances.

The current problem with numbers of retirees was caused by the Great Depression , which was followed by World War 2. Practically an entire generation forstalled marriage or chose not to have to children because of the economic instability of the 30s, followed by the immediacy of World War 2. The end of the war brought the perception of prosperity (the economy didn’t really improve until 48′) there were a lot of marriages, and childbirth numbers were significantly higher than they had been for at least 15 years. This trend lasted for 17 years, and yes, it certainly did fuel an economy that was ready for expansion. Everything would have worked out fine save for the fact that many members of that generation, which we call the baby boomers, failed the earn the same real income (i.e; adjusted for inflation and factored in to consider changed needs) as their parents. This was often despite the fact they were better educated. Given that, as well as changed attitudes about the place of family in their lives, they tended to have less children than their parent did.

The earliest baby boomers will be retiring in a few years. Their retirements will not crush the system, in part because this has anticipated for some time now,and they have been contributing higher percentages of their incomes to FICA than their parents have. I could tell you that from experience, and when I was self-employed my FICA payments were considerable. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it leverages as best it can the difference between contributors and recipients.

One can, by the simple omission of relevant data, *prove* that Social Security’s intake-outtake system is flawed, and will go bankrupt eventually. But I think its a rather complex scenario here. And as there will never be such the disparity between the numbers of retirees and the number of recipients again the soon to unfold scenario is unique.

In a developed economy (USA/Europe), zero population growth is never a good thing.
I can give you many many reasons but lets just stick to the Social Security issue. If there is going to be zero growth, who will take care of all retirees?

Europe has come around on this issue heavily by promoting (with very mixed results) population growth.

As I said before, I do not want to go deeply into this because this is a very long discussion. If you are interested, I suggest you check out Mark Steyn. He discusses many sociological/economical/political issues that currently/will be facing the west. You cna look into one of his books or plentiful lectures on youtube.

The problem with that is that it potentially endangers children that had no say as to whether they were born. However, there is a workaround which, while it won’t stop these women from procreating, it will take the children out of the system. Presently there supposed to be limitation on the time period in which one is eligible for financial support. Place limitations on the “Aid to Mothers With Dependent Children” program and then place the children in foster care. While foster care is not the best solution (that system needs a serious overhaul) it takes away any possible financial incentive to have children in these cases.

You’ll notice I said it has the tinge of eugenicism. I was sure that you were not advocating a eugenicist approach, but one of the problems with some solutions is that they can lead to other actions which cross that line. When that happens, the earlier allowance can be used as a legal precedent, which often leads to a revocation of the that policy.

Zero population growth exists in many countries not by public policy but merely by practice. Even in the United States there has been a trend towards smaller family units. A smaller amount of people competing for resources will keep prices from rising. The inherent problem, of course is that it has the effect of nulling the growth effect on business that comes from a larger consumer base. The counterbalance is that businesses become more dynamic as they have to innovate and promote better to sell their products and services.

Again my argument is about smart governments promoting good behavior with financial incentives. The reason that I brought up welfare moms was to show the contrary point. Meaning bad behavior should NOT be promoted with financial incentives. (If a single woman is on welfare her welfare check should not increase if she decides to have more kids). I do not understand how that has anything to do with eugenics. She can still have as many children as she wants as long as the family is self sufficient.

The countries that will have a law of zero poulation growth are the ones that are going to physically and culturally die out but that is beyond the realm of this post.