Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Why would it be ridiculous for the state to have a liquor store inside of another store??

Because then it becomes the state essentially showing preferential treatment to one particular store/chain. The other grocery store chains would fight this tooth and nail and they should. Sorry but it won't happen.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

The states with the most restrictive liquor laws are some of the most conservative.

Ideologically, modern conservatives generally crusade against drinking, legalization of marijuana, 🞵🞵🞵🞵, marriage equality and other supposed vices - often using the government to regulate them.

No.. Conservatives have allowed religious influence to pollute their philosophies... Regulating liquor is not a conservative philosophy... It might be a popular Republican philosophy but it's not a conservative one.... Regulation is a liberal philosophy

People classified as liberal are not liberal on everything. People classified as conservative are not conservative on everything... Most people become hypocritical at some point....

If you believe that the Utah State government should have less regulation over our alcohol laws and let private business do what they do and serve the public.... Then you are conservative on the issue of alcohol regulation...

There is a war in the Republican Party right now... There are Republicans like John McCain who have become corrupted by liberal progressivism as a result of religious influence... Then there are the libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul Who are totally against the government regulating stuff like drugs alcohol and marriage.... The Republican Party that has evolved over the last 20 years is standing on borrowed time... They are toast... So are the Liberal dems....

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

No.. Conservatives have allowed religious influence to pollute their philosophies... Regulating liquor is not a conservative philosophy... It might be a popular Republican philosophy but it's not a conservative one.... Regulation is a liberal philosophy

People classified as liberal are not liberal on everything. People classified as conservative are not conservative on everything... Most people become hypocritical at some point....

If you believe that the Utah State government should have less regulation over our alcohol laws and let private business do what they do and serve the public.... Then you are conservative on the issue of alcohol regulation...

There is a war in the Republican Party right now... There are Republicans like John McCain who have become corrupted by liberal progressivism as a result of religious influence... Then there are the libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul Who are totally against the government regulating stuff like drugs alcohol and marriage.... The Republican Party that has evolved over the last 20 years is standing on borrowed time... They are toast... So are the Liberal dems....

It doesn't matter whether they've allowed the religious aspect of their party to pollute the meaning of conservative. In today's lexicon, conservative is absolutely how I defined it. That's what happens in politics - ideological definitions change over time. 100 years ago, liberalism actually meant small government, laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and property rights.

Of course, over time, much of that has changed. Liberalism, at least in America, is defined by FDR's New Deal policies, economic regulation and the social safety nets that make up much of our society - while also keeping the traditional views of liberty and equality.

What conservatives once were is irrelevant. Today's conservatives in this country, at least the people who identify as conservatives, are almost certainly individuals who want government to legislate morality - and that includes Democrats and Republicans.

Rand Paul is but one voice. Even his father didn't make a dent in the Republican Primary, and for all the bluster of the libertarians taking over, the party still adopts an ideology that absolutely allows government intrusiveness into the livelihoods of millions of Americans.

So, really, it doesn't matter what you think conservative should mean or whether it's been co-opted by the religious right. It is what it is.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It doesn't matter whether they've allowed the religious aspect of their party to pollute the meaning of conservative. In today's lexicon, conservative is absolutely how I defined it. That's what happens in politics - ideological definitions change over time. 100 years ago, liberalism actually meant small government, laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and property rights.

Of course, over time, much of that has changed. Liberalism, at least in America, is defined by FDR's New Deal policies, economic regulation and the social safety nets that make up much of our society - while also keeping the traditional views of liberty and equality.

What conservatives once were is irrelevant. Today's conservatives in this country, at least the people who identify as conservatives, are almost certainly individuals who want government to legislate morality - and that includes Democrats and Republicans.

Rand Paul is but one voice. Even his father didn't make a dent in the Republican Primary, and for all the bluster of the libertarians taking over, the party still adopts an ideology that absolutely allows government intrusiveness into the livelihoods of millions of Americans.

So, really, it doesn't matter what you think conservative should mean or whether it's been co-opted by the religious right. It is what it is.

Conservative = individualism, regressive government, freedom.

Liberalism = collectivism, Progressive government, regulation.

Not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal...

Liberalism and conservatism are philosophies.. Republican and Democrat are political affiliations.. You seem to be confusing the two.

Most Republicans are moderate conservatives, and most Democrats are moderate liberals.... The political structure within both parties, however, has shifted towards ideological progressivism.. and its driving people apart. Democrats are becoming more communistic, and Republicans are becoming more fascistic... As a result libertarianism and anti-affiliation are on the rise... The two party system as we know it is near its end.. The Republican Party really is two parties right now... The only thing that remains unclear is if the war will continue to stay inside the Republican Party or if it will break apart.. The Republican Party replaced the wig party very quickly... I think you could see something very similar happening... In the end it may or may not be the called the Republican Party but it won't be the same party.. We very well could be looking at three party system...

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.. Ron Paul always came off as kind of eccentric and kooky.. Rand Paul is much more levelheaded and reasonable sounding... I think he will attract a much larger crowd than his father... Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie can both take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Rand Paul would be smart to do the Republican primary.. And then go independent whether or not he wins or loses the Republican nomination.. That would be a huge FU to the establishment Republican Party.. And would pull in non-idealistic nonprogressive voters from both sides

[jimmycdii]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

Because then it becomes the state essentially showing preferential treatment to one particular store/chain. The other grocery store chains would fight this tooth and nail and they should. Sorry but it won't happen.

I have no thoughts on the likelihood of putting a liquor store inside another store, but I don't think the preferential treatment argument is enough to rule it out. Right now the gov't gives preferential treatment to some landlords by renting from them. This may well be the case with current liquor stores; does anyone know if the state actually owns the land they occupy? If they rent that land, they're already siding with some private citizens over others.

And even if the state does own the liquor store land, all sorts of agencies rent space in private buildings. There may (or may not) be other reasons it wouldn't happen, but the government already shows preferential treatment to some people over others all the time.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by jimmycdii

I have no thoughts on the likelihood of putting a liquor store inside another store, but I don't think the preferential treatment argument is enough to rule it out. Right now the gov't gives preferential treatment to some landlords by renting from them. This may well be the case with current liquor stores; does anyone know if the state actually owns the land they occupy? If they rent that land, they're already siding with some private citizens over others.

And even if the state does own the liquor store land, all sorts of agencies rent space in private buildings. There may (or may not) be other reasons it wouldn't happen, but the government already shows preferential treatment to some people over others all the time.

It just comes down to location... Hell.. they could even make the stores smaller operation, hire 1 full time employee per location.. and put them in any store that has the space, customer base, and reasonable lease rate.. then they could have other employees that rotate around where needed... Plus.. we can still keep specialty stores like the wine store on 300 west... and the transient booze shack as I suggested.

I'm not sure why liquor stores can't be operated privately.. can't we come to some sort of a compromise where as long as the strong liquor is separated from the main part of the store and sold separately that they can do it?? kind of like a zion curt ion for grocers?? I mean seriously.. Private stores are better about IDing people then the state stores. I get ID'd maybe 40% of the time at the state store and closer to 90% of the time elsewhere... The Maverick on 200 west and north temple wasn't IDing but they got busted and couldn't sale beer for some number of days.. now they are pretty good about it.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

....
And Stenar: Utah's liquor laws are far from being a normal right winged policy. The right wing is generally against the state regulating business and such things... Telling us what we can and can't consume and restricting businesses from providing those things to us is actually a progressive left wing type of thinking.... Look at New York with all their ridiculousness anti soda and salt propaganda garbage.. That is all the left wing. l the right is against it.... In Utah we have a very special breed of right wing that are hypocritical and instantly switch progressive left when their religious view warrant it... I'm not excusing it or saying its good.. But don't generalize conservative...

Nope, limiting alcohol has always been a right-wing thing, not liberal. Remember the prohibition? The dry counties that exist now in Texas? Most of the Dallas metro area is dry, but the counties are smaller there and they all just drive over one county to drink.

[Stenar]

The government has always been the ones defining religion. Civil marriage is in the constitution. It's not going away.

If the state is not involved in marriage, how will marriages form? Would people have to go to a church to be married? Or would they just make a vow to each other and confer the 1,000 rights and protections that go along with marriage?

Originally Posted by ajiuO

And I don't want Utah to become more libel... I want us to get rid of our liberal liquor laws... And as for gay marriage... I don't thing the government has any business defining marriage period... It goes far beyond being a gay issue... It's not fair that people who choose to stay single have to pay more taxes and get stiffed on 🞵🞵🞵🞵... The problem with marriage has never been a gay issue alone.. Although that is what people have chose to focus on... The problem is that there are other laws that are bias towards people who don't fit the definition of marriage.... Since gay had no desire to fit that definition they saw it as bias towards them specifically..... Changing the definition includes them but doesn't fix the problem... Laws are still bias towards a lot of people... Gay people just get to be a member of the club now... Good for them... But it still 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for polygamist and for single people.... Where are are the liberals fighting for polygamist and single people not to be discriminated against???? They're hypocrites just like the Republicans... Just in a different way.... As long as they get what they want it's okay.

Libertarian conservatism.... No legal marriage for anybody... Same tax rates and benefits for everybody.

I'm sure this post will get deleted.. But who cares :/

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

Because then it becomes the state essentially showing preferential treatment to one particular store/chain. The other grocery store chains would fight this tooth and nail and they should. Sorry but it won't happen.

So, did the state show preferential treatment to Smith's by placing a liquor store in the same building as the Smith's in the Avenues?

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

No.. Conservatives have allowed religious influence to pollute their philosophies... Regulating liquor is not a conservative philosophy... It might be a popular Republican philosophy but it's not a conservative one.... Regulation is a liberal philosophy

People classified as liberal are not liberal on everything. People classified as conservative are not conservative on everything... Most people become hypocritical at some point....

If you believe that the Utah State government should have less regulation over our alcohol laws and let private business do what they do and serve the public.... Then you are conservative on the issue of alcohol regulation...

There is a war in the Republican Party right now... There are Republicans like John McCain who have become corrupted by liberal progressivism as a result of religious influence... Then there are the libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul Who are totally against the government regulating stuff like drugs alcohol and marriage.... The Republican Party that has evolved over the last 20 years is standing on borrowed time... They are toast... So are the Liberal dems....

I'm not quite sure you understand the definitions of conservative and liberal. Liberal doesn't mean you just want to regulate, control and stop people from doing things.
Conservatives want to conserve traditional values. Liberals are open to new ideas or behaviors and willing to discard traditional values.
How on earth was John McCain influenced to become liberal through religious influence?? When almost all religious are extremely regressive.
Liberalizing liquor laws is a liberal ideology, NOT a conservative one. You've got that backwards.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Conservative = individualism, regressive government, freedom.

Liberalism = collectivism, Progressive government, regulation.

Not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal...

Liberalism and conservatism are philosophies.. Republican and Democrat are political affiliations.. You seem to be confusing the two.

Conservatism in America is commonly associated with the ideas of classical liberalism. The word "conservative", however, literally means someone who favors the current system and opposes change. America was founded on the principles of the classical liberalism of the enlightenment, so a conservative is someone who (ostensibly) favors those ideas. "Liberalism" in the American lexicon has somehow become a synonym with progressivism, a word that itself has come to be associated with everything from statism and socialism to liberalism and individualism.

Republicans largely subscribe to the ideals of liberalism but many of them try to reconcile it with religion and traditionalism, leading many to cognitive dissonance and resulting in things like discriminatory policies and silly liquor laws. Because the word "liberal" has many competing connotations, the word "libertarian" has been coined to describe someone who follows classical liberalism.

[EPdesign]

Like I said. Can of worms opened. Good grief. Now another 2 days before we get back to development

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The government has always been the ones defining religion. Civil marriage is in the constitution. It's not going away.

If the state is not involved in marriage, how will marriages form? Would people have to go to a church to be married? Or would they just make a vow to each other and confer the 1,000 rights and protections that go along with marriage?

Sure why not.. go to church or just make a promise to each other...


Thats the problem... there shouldn't be any special rights and protections for "married people" period. The laws are bias towards non married people.. that has always been the problem.

Gay people have always been able to get Married, assuming its to someone of the opposite 🞵🞵🞵. The law was applied the same to everyone... it never said marriage is being with someone that you love unless your gay... Its just a definition... and according to that definition no gay person should give a rats 🞵🞵🞵 about a legal marriage... They don't want to do what that definition implies... but on the other hand if you change the definition to what it is now.. That is not how another large portion of the population thinks of marriage... So while they can.. Its meaningless to them and why should they bother to give a rats 🞵🞵🞵 about it?

When it comes down to it.. its just a definition... half of the people are going to agree with it and the other half won't.. no matter how you define it.. Ultimately It would be better to just not define it at all.. but if your going to.. Why should anyone care how its defined? If you don't like it.. Don't do it... if its that big of a to people make up a new term and define it how ever you want.

The reason it matters is because when your married you get something out of it. under the traditional definition of marriage, in order for gay people to get that something, they would halve to do something that by definition they would have absolutely no reason to want to do.. get married... so they want to change the definition so that they can benafit from it without having to do something that they don't want to do...

The legal definition of marriage doesn't mean 🞵🞵🞵🞵. It has no religious significance (so why religious people even care I don't know), your not bound to stay with the person.. Who cares? Its what you get from it... and that isn't a gay problem. The benefits are not bias towards gay people... its anyone who doesn't want to get married... So why stop with gay people? Shouldn't single people and people who want plural spouses get the same benefits??? it would be hypocritical to say no.


So yes! legal marieage should be eliminated. No special benefits should be given to anyone.. that is ridiculous.. The fact that you want to spend your life with someone should not entitle you to anything special. If you want to commit your self to someone and celebrate... then do it... you don't need the government... if its a religious thing then go to your church..

Instead of legal marriage we should just implement legal (non blood) relative law... That would handle all of the power of attorney / next of kin sort of stuff... You would be able to legally relate yourself to who ever and how ever many people as you want... age.. what ever it doesn't matter... and no tax breaks for anyone... lets start paying off Obamas credit bill.

I'm just as pissed off for myself being single as I was for gay people... because we were both subject to the same bias.. now I am just pissed off for singles and polygamist... the worlds unfair... oh well

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Conservative = individualism, regressive government, freedom.

Liberalism = collectivism, Progressive government, regulation.

Not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal...

Liberalism and conservatism are philosophies.. Republican and Democrat are political affiliations.. You seem to be confusing the two.

Most Republicans are moderate conservatives, and most Democrats are moderate liberals.... The political structure within both parties, however, has shifted towards ideological progressivism.. and its driving people apart. Democrats are becoming more communistic, and Republicans are becoming more fascistic... As a result libertarianism and anti-affiliation are on the rise... The two party system as we know it is near its end.. The Republican Party really is two parties right now... The only thing that remains unclear is if the war will continue to stay inside the Republican Party or if it will break apart.. The Republican Party replaced the wig party very quickly... I think you could see something very similar happening... In the end it may or may not be the called the Republican Party but it won't be the same party.. We very well could be looking at three party system...

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.. Ron Paul always came off as kind of eccentric and kooky.. Rand Paul is much more levelheaded and reasonable sounding... I think he will attract a much larger crowd than his father... Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie can both take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Rand Paul would be smart to do the Republican primary.. And then go independent whether or not he wins or loses the Republican nomination.. That would be a huge FU to the establishment Republican Party.. And would pull in non-idealistic nonprogressive voters from both sides

You are confused or purposely being obtuse on this one.

Your definition is not modern conservatism. It just isn't. No matter how many times you keep pretending it is, does not change the fact, especially in the United States, conservatism is directly linked the regressive, morale crusading. That is not up for an argument and to suggest that because there are a couple libertarian conservatives within our national narrative doesn't change this - as the conservative movement is dominated by the entire southern culture that often elects Republicans (and at one point, Democrats) to politics. Cultural and social conservatism dominates the ideology ... whether you want to admit it or not.

Now where you're getting confused here is your inability to realize an ideology's definition can change. The fact you quote liberalism in the way you do absolutely proves my point! Guess what? That isn't the historic definition of liberalism. What you just quoted is modern liberalism - which is different than the liberalism of the 19th Century.

Liberalism of that era was all about free trade, laissez-faire economics, small government, deregulation and were polar opposites on a whole host of issues compared to today's modern liberals. You want to know who is a classical liberal? Calvin Coolidge. There is no way he would be considered a liberal in today's world.

That's the point. The definition of what a conservative is, like what a liberal is, has changed immensely over the years. Today's conservatives are almost certainly defined by their cultural and social conservatism than the libertarian streak that may exist with a handful of candidates. For every Rand Paul within the Republican Party, you have a dozen or more Michele Bachmanns.

It's safe to say today's Republican Party is dominated by a type of conservatism that is in stark contrast to that of what Paul preaches. It's not about party, you're right about that, but ideologically? Today's conservatives almost certainly align with the Republican Party - and so too the members who are elected to the government.

So, my point stands. Most conservatives continue to fight against personal freedom unless it comes to the Second Amendment. But beyond that? How many conservatives support marriage equality?

30% of self-identified conservatives would vote FOR marriage equality.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx

77% of liberals said they would vote for it.

54% of tea party voters, who I think it's safe to say identify with being conservative, oppose legalizing marijuana - while 55% of Democrats support it and 59% of Republicans oppose it.

http://reason.com/poll/2013/12/13/reason-rupe-december-2013-national-surve

I think it's great Rand Paul is trying to steer the ideology back to its historic roots. But let's not kid ourselves that today's conservatives are anything less than what I portrayed. In fact, I would wager most conservatives take pride in that fact. Liberals? They're not near as left-wing as they were in Roosevelt's days.

[Stenar]

The idea that gay people have always been able to be married to someone of the same 🞵🞵🞵 is incredibly offensive as gay people are not attracted to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵.

I will not debate civil marriage with you. It's in the Constitution. It was established in the USA by the founders who specifically did not want religious marriage. It's not going anywhere.

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Sure why not.. go to church or just make a promise to each other...


Thats the problem... there shouldn't be any special rights and protections for "married people" period. The laws are bias towards non married people.. that has always been the problem.

Gay people have always been able to get Married, assuming its to someone of the opposite 🞵🞵🞵. The law was applied the same to everyone... it never said marriage is being with someone that you love unless your gay... Its just a definition... and according to that definition no gay person should give a rats 🞵🞵🞵 about a legal marriage... They don't want to do what that definition implies... but on the other hand if you change the definition to what it is now.. That is not how another large portion of the population thinks of marriage... So while they can.. Its meaningless to them and why should they bother to give a rats 🞵🞵🞵 about it?

When it comes down to it.. its just a definition... half of the people are going to agree with it and the other half won't.. no matter how you define it.. Ultimately It would be better to just not define it at all.. but if your going to.. Why should anyone care how its defined? If you don't like it.. Don't do it... if its that big of a to people make up a new term and define it how ever you want.

The reason it matters is because when your married you get something out of it. under the traditional definition of marriage, in order for gay people to get that something, they would halve to do something that by definition they would have absolutely no reason to want to do.. get married... so they want to change the definition so that they can benafit from it without having to do something that they don't want to do...

The legal definition of marriage doesn't mean 🞵🞵🞵🞵. It has no religious significance (so why religious people even care I don't know), your not bound to stay with the person.. Who cares? Its what you get from it... and that isn't a gay problem. The benefits are not bias towards gay people... its anyone who doesn't want to get married... So why stop with gay people? Shouldn't single people and people who want plural spouses get the same benefits??? it would be hypocritical to say no.


So yes! legal marieage should be eliminated. No special benefits should be given to anyone.. that is ridiculous.. The fact that you want to spend your life with someone should not entitle you to anything special. If you want to commit your self to someone and celebrate... then do it... you don't need the government... if its a religious thing then go to your church..

Instead of legal marriage we should just implement legal (non blood) relative law... That would handle all of the power of attorney / next of kin sort of stuff... You would be able to legally relate yourself to who ever and how ever many people as you want... age.. what ever it doesn't matter... and no tax breaks for anyone... lets start paying off Obamas credit bill.

I'm just as pissed of for myself being single as I was for gay people... the worlds unfair... oh well

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

Like I said. Can of worms opened. Good grief. Now another 2 days before we get back to development

Are we incapable of discussing both?

I was actually preparing to ask if anyone has herd news of the other 4 Popeyes locations that were suppose to be built?

A while back ago there was an article saying that 8 were to be built.. The one in Lehi has ridiculous amounts of business.. I was hoping to hear news of a salt lake location???? any one???

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The idea that gay people have always been able to be married to someone of the same 🞵🞵🞵 is incredibly offensive as gay people are not attracted to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵.

I will not debate civil marriage with you. It's in the Constitution. It was established in the USA by the founders who specifically did not want religious marriage. It's not going anywhere.

I never said they could always marry someone of the same 🞵🞵🞵?? I said they have always been able to marry someone of the opposite 🞵🞵🞵.. I also said that they would have no reason to want to... The same holds true for strait people... they haven't always been able to marry someone of the same 🞵🞵🞵.. and now they can.. but I doubt they want to... that isn't offensive nor is it meant to be... its a fact.

You seem to be under the impression that the law has something to do with who you are attracted to.. or who you love... It doesn't say anything about that.. it has nothing to do with that... in regards to who you are attracted to the law is meaningless... as far as love and attraction go.. who you love and who you make promises to is between you them and anyone in your life who cares... f the government.

The government doesn't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 who you are attracted to and in the end they will not obligate you to keep your promise to that person.. you have a piece of paper that basically says "yep I fit the government definition".. Is the government so precious that it matters... they don't even give you a second thought.. its the people you know to whom it matters.. the only reason it matters legally is $

[Stenar]

Duh, I mistyped. It is offensive to say that gay people have always been able to get married to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵, when they are not attracted to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

The government doesn't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 who you are attracted to and in the end they will not obligate you to keep your promise to that person.. you have a piece of paper that basically says "yep I fit the government definition".. Is the government so precious that it matters... they don't even give you a second thought.. its the people you know to whom it matters.. the only reason it matters legally is $

What the government thinks about a gay person's relationship is extremely important because there are thousands of institutions, organizations, etc. that look to that piece of paper.
If a gay person's partner goes to the hospital, the hospital can deny the partner visitation rights, despite the fact that they vowed to each other in private and lived together for 40 years.
When one partner dies, the law decides that the sister or mother, or other relative is the heir to all of their worldly goods and not the other partner.
When they go to the mortuary to bury their loved one, they won't even talk to you, and ask for the next of kin.
It goes on and on. There are hundreds of examples I could give why gay people need marriage equality.
Civil marriage is not just about '$.' There needs to be a legal framework to decide a multitude of issues. That's why civil marriage was first created by the Jusitinian lawyers in ancient Rome. Who inherits the house. Who can visit in the hospital. Who can make decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated. etc.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Duh, I mistyped. It is offensive to say that gay people have always been able to get married to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵, when they are not attracted to the opposite 🞵🞵🞵.

Why is that offensive? Is it not true? Its offensive to state a fact.. Im not gay.. However i would not find it offensive to say that I can hitch a man.. I don't desire to do so.. But the idea is not offensive... Im talking legal.. Not love.. The government has nothing to do with who you can love, who you can be attracted to, who you can be with, Who you can live with.. The legal definition of marriage doesn't change any of this....

It actually blows my mind how anyone could put any significance, other than money, behind the government knowledge in your marriage..

Seriously.. Other then legally and financially.. Can you explain any significance to me.. of the government recognizing a marriage??