Ever notice that each time election season comes around we find out that it costs more and more money for someone to get elected?

hmmm, and here I thought voting was free choice, not someone buying them!

I know many people who are happily married, and I congratulate them on being so.  As a matter of fact, one of my friends is getting married tomorrow, so I will start by congratulating him on making an honest woman out of Mary!  LOL

Unfortunately, the state of marriage isn't for me.  This comes from a conversation I had this morning with a few of my friends in a conference room...

There are two parts to a marriage:  The actual relationship, and (at least in the US) a State approved "contract" between two people.  One does NOT determine the validity of the other in my opinion!

The actual relationship, the feelings, emotions, the unrelenting want and need to be with a specific person is there anyway.  Usually before the idea of marriage comes into the picture.  That is a great thing, and something that I believe most people spend a large portion of their lives looking for.  Under no circumstances should anyone degrade that type of relationship if it exists outside of the context of "Holy Matrimony" because that concept is dead and gone, and has been since the laws were passed that you can not get married without the approval of the State, which definitely is not Holy!

You see, in the US, no matter how much you love someone, and want to be with them, you cannot get married without first asking permission of the state in which you reside, or in the case of Nevada, the state in which you blow your retirement fund on a craps table on your honeymoon!  There is no "sanctity" to me in having to go ask some town clerk somewhere if I might have permission to marry the woman of my dreams.  I don't know this person, they don't know me, what in the name of all things Holy do they have to do with my marriage??? 

Well, I'll tell you what they have to do with it:  the states need to know so they know how much of your money they are entitled to in taxes, and how much to give each aggrieved party upon dissolution of the relationship.  Folks, marriage today is not anything Holy, it's a legal contract binding two people together in the eyes of the state.  They make money selling you the "right" to get married, and make even more money arbitrating your "right" to get back out of it!

Take my situation for example:  33, single, no kids, entrepreneur with a small and steadily growing business.  Now imagine I were to get married tomorrow, my wife does nothing but sit on the couch watching soap operas, and over the next several years the business takes off and I steadily increase the style in which we are living (the American Dream right?) and give her everything she ever wanted because quite frankly I want those things too.  Alright, now we have a marriage and standard of living which is based upon income from a business that she has put no work into (other than allowing me the time needed to develop it) but then things start heading south with the geese and the relationship falls apart.  Time for a divorce.  She is entitled, not to the business, but to half the money from the business according to the law so that she may maintain the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed to.  It's called alimony, and it is a perpetual state of financial support until such time as she remarries.  But why do that?  Why not just "shack up" with her boytoy and have the best of all worlds?  Nope, not a risk I am willing to take! 

Now, a couple of things:  one, I do believe in and want the type of relationship that a good marriage is based upon, I just don't EVER want the government that involved in my personal life.  The other thing, as women are becoming more and more successful, especially as entrepreneurs, they are being hit even harder than successful men in divorce courts.  The idea to me of a marriage license is nothing more than a certificate of ownership between people, and more specifically assets aquired during the life of the contract!

This is something that I struggle with myself, and I hate to see other people do it even more.  But ever notice, especially for the self-employed, that they are always working?  I do it, I can't seem to help it most of the time.  Even if I'm not in my office, I am thinking about what I have to do when I get back there!

Try taking a night off...  For me, that's an endless loop of "I ought to be working"! 

But you know what?  Everyone has to find time to get away from the work.  For example, my parents go out every week and buy more plants to put in the yard.  My question to them everytime is:  When are you going to stop planting and enjoy the flowers?  I guess I can't say much, I do the same thing.  But then, they complain that I work too much also!

Moral of the story... In our busy lives, and wanting to do something "productive" every minute of the day, each of us have to find that half hour to hour just to relax.  Sit down and enjoy a cup of coffee instead of the usual stolen sips between punctuation while typing!  Believe me, you will be more productive when you get back to work after that break!

First, an apology.  I must apologize for letting my blog slip.  For the summer time "supposing" to be slow for business, I have found myself incredibly busy!  I will do better finding the half hour or so to update the blog more regularly!

One of the oddities in our society is that everyone is complaining about "Constitution this" "Constitution that"....  and yet, we voided one of the basic premises of the very same Constitution long ago.

According to the Constitution, the three highest offices in the land MUST be elected.  That is the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and Speaker of the House.  Why did they do this?  Those are the offices that automatically assume the Presidency should the President die in office. 

But this isn't what we do now.  We elect only the President, mainly because of the development of the political party system.  The Vice President is attached to the President's ticket.  We can no longer not elect the VP of his party's choice without refusing to elect the person running for President. 

As far as the Speaker of the House goes, that position is now elected by the House Majority party, rather than the American People.

Wouldn't it be funny to have a return to an election process as set out by the Constitution in today's world?  For example, the popular vote comes out, is reflected in the electoral college correctly, and we end up with a Republican President, Independent VP, and a Democrat for Speaker of the House. 

That's how it is "supposed" to be!

No other court in this land handles cases of a "moral" basis than our Supreme Court.  The US Legislature is responsible for writing the laws, the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing them (if they are breaking them themselves), but it is the Judicial branch, and specifically the US Supreme Court that determines if the laws are "legal".  Legality of a law is determined by several things:  current interpretation of the Constitution, the society's morality, and past judicial history to name a few factors.  Want to know the importance of the Supreme Court to our society?  Just look at the decisions that have changed the face of our society:  racial integration, women's rights, the end of Prohibition, all came about because of decisions made in the Supreme Court which were later written into law. 

Now we have a rather peculiar situation developing.  Most of the time, the Supreme Court does not lose, or potentially lose, several members at one time.  Ronald Reagan appointed three of the judges on the court, including Sandra Day O'Connor and that one President had appointed more judges than any other in recent history.  So why is this important to use now?

Simple, with the resignation of O'Connor, the ill health of Reinquist and advanced age of Stevens, President Bush could possibly repeat Reagan's feat of being able to appoint three justices.  However, the dynamic is different.  I don't believe anyone can now, or in the future, place George W Bush and Ronald Reagan on the same historical level as Presidents.  The other thing:  Reagan was a conservative, but not a conservative from the religious right as Bush seems to be.  Even though I am a supporter of Bush (in general), and a Republican, I do NOT want this man having three appointments to the Supreme Court.

Another curious thing about the public's view of the Court and it's Justices is that since they do not "run" for office, and are not elected by popular vote, the public doesn't seem to care.  I think that is a huge mistake!  You can, and should, make your views known to your Senators and Representatives.  It's the only way we, the people, can help ensure we have a Supreme Court that is at least somewhat in touch with where society is in 2005!