Yag "marriage" and immigration
This morning, leafing through some immigration cases, it struck me that letting yags marry would bring some complications to immigration law. The law defines family relationships carefully for the purposes of determining, for instance, if a citizen or permanent resident alien can bring a wife or parent or child in to this country without triggering numerical limits. Of course marriage is defined in the law as it has been since the beginning of society. The immigration authorities have had a lot of trouble with sham marriages, as depicted in the movie Green Card with Gerard Depardieu. If the US were to legitimize yag marriage, a US yag could go overseas and drag in anybody it wants to. What constitutes "consummation" of a yag marriage, anyway? Coverture? Are we going to have to come up with thresholds of love in quantifiable units?
Marriage is interwoven throughout our society's web of rules. Duh. Those yagophiles who say that letting them marry wouldn't really change anything are either stupid or disingenuous. And the immigration laws also point out a problem with polygamy. One US citizen could bring in half the population of Guatemala if polygamists were granted the same right as yags, that is, to define marriage to suit themselves.
Another separate point: What if a biologically female "married" yag gets pregnant (Hey, it could happen)? Is the yag it's married to considered the father of the child? Is it liable for child support? If not, why not? That's what happens when a man's wife gets pregnant by another man. Equal means equal, doesn't it? Or is that only until it's not convenient?
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Annex Canada
Canada is having trouble financing its armed forces, which have sunk to a low ebb. Maybe this is a good thing. A few companies of Marines on rotation back from Iraq or Afghanistan could come back through Ottawa and take over Canada with little or no opposition. The French-Canadians would of course surrender immediately and most of Western Canada would breathe a huge sigh of relief. We'd be connected by land to Alaska and would gain enormous reserves of oil, gas, nickel, uranium and fish. And we'd never have to worry about ice supplies. Disney could build "Polar Bear Land" and give the Indians and Eskimos jobs. The only big problem would be the health care bureaucrats and other freeloaders who would have to be retrained to be productive. Best of all, we'd have a lifetime supply of native comedians. Who's going to stop us? France?!
Canada is having trouble financing its armed forces, which have sunk to a low ebb. Maybe this is a good thing. A few companies of Marines on rotation back from Iraq or Afghanistan could come back through Ottawa and take over Canada with little or no opposition. The French-Canadians would of course surrender immediately and most of Western Canada would breathe a huge sigh of relief. We'd be connected by land to Alaska and would gain enormous reserves of oil, gas, nickel, uranium and fish. And we'd never have to worry about ice supplies. Disney could build "Polar Bear Land" and give the Indians and Eskimos jobs. The only big problem would be the health care bureaucrats and other freeloaders who would have to be retrained to be productive. Best of all, we'd have a lifetime supply of native comedians. Who's going to stop us? France?!
Monday, February 23, 2004
Kerry AWOL in the War on Terror
Kerry has been attacking President Bush for being "AWOL" thirty years ago by serving in the National Guard. Yet Kerry himself has been AWOL for years in the war on terror. "Serving" in the Senate carries with it an obligation to fight for your country. What has Kerry done in the last twenty years to make the world safe from terrorism? He voted against the First Gulf War. When this position drew hostile fire, Kerry turned tail and ran, voting last year for the Second Gulf War. Then, when he saw that wasn't the best political position to garner the Democratic nomination, he surrendered to the French and voted against follow-up funding for the troops in Iraq. In his twenty years in the Senate, he was AWOL repeatedly when his vote was needed to support intelligence funding and many weapon systems which could have convinced the terrorists that we were serious about defeating them. But then, of course, we would also have to have had a President who would fight for the country and not just for his right to seduce interns without penalty.
Kerry has been attacking President Bush for being "AWOL" thirty years ago by serving in the National Guard. Yet Kerry himself has been AWOL for years in the war on terror. "Serving" in the Senate carries with it an obligation to fight for your country. What has Kerry done in the last twenty years to make the world safe from terrorism? He voted against the First Gulf War. When this position drew hostile fire, Kerry turned tail and ran, voting last year for the Second Gulf War. Then, when he saw that wasn't the best political position to garner the Democratic nomination, he surrendered to the French and voted against follow-up funding for the troops in Iraq. In his twenty years in the Senate, he was AWOL repeatedly when his vote was needed to support intelligence funding and many weapon systems which could have convinced the terrorists that we were serious about defeating them. But then, of course, we would also have to have had a President who would fight for the country and not just for his right to seduce interns without penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)