creedo299
Epochal Historian
Bush administration, defines sexual roles, vs.. ins.
Due to the fact out of the sexual revolution and the evolvement, that gays couples to exist, cohabit and may be there for a number of reasons, the Bush Administration has decided to take the following action.
President Bush has defined, as of his latest statement, what government feels is a normal marriage and therefore relinquishes any responsibility, for cohabitation, that does not now seem to fit their definition of what a normal marriage should be, between two consenting peoples.
This is an interesting historical view, as this action should certainly pit the insurance agencies, against formalized movement, in superior high court grievance suit claims, where a beneficiary should be possibly defined by either insurance or government regulation definitions.
This could possibly leave the aggrieved spouse, within a gay marriage, not to receive proper compensation, due to an infraction of definition as to what is perceived as a normal marriage.
Please note, that there has been strong innuendo, that possible some doings within the White House have additionally crossed the line, of what is considered classically sexually normal, with reference to who might allowed to have access to the historic mansion?
So this action, would couple church with state, is assuming that the church knows best, in what is perceived normal for its citizenry.
Due to the fact out of the sexual revolution and the evolvement, that gays couples to exist, cohabit and may be there for a number of reasons, the Bush Administration has decided to take the following action.
President Bush has defined, as of his latest statement, what government feels is a normal marriage and therefore relinquishes any responsibility, for cohabitation, that does not now seem to fit their definition of what a normal marriage should be, between two consenting peoples.
This is an interesting historical view, as this action should certainly pit the insurance agencies, against formalized movement, in superior high court grievance suit claims, where a beneficiary should be possibly defined by either insurance or government regulation definitions.
This could possibly leave the aggrieved spouse, within a gay marriage, not to receive proper compensation, due to an infraction of definition as to what is perceived as a normal marriage.
Please note, that there has been strong innuendo, that possible some doings within the White House have additionally crossed the line, of what is considered classically sexually normal, with reference to who might allowed to have access to the historic mansion?
So this action, would couple church with state, is assuming that the church knows best, in what is perceived normal for its citizenry.