You all must have been brought up in nasty backwater towns... I am 43 and in 1969 was in kindergarten.

I lived in a small New England town. We may not have been told about "inappropriate touching" but we sure were given books about "strangers" and how to avoid them if they behaved inappropriately. Scared us good. Now if we want to address family molestation which is rampant in the human society ... then inappropriate touching has to be taught at school - because those Mom's and Dad's who molest certainly are not teaching their kids how to identify it as wrong and how to report it/get help.

I honestly dont think most American's would want to help kid's in this way. Sad.

RJP3 Boston (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:16 PM)

I'm sorry RJP. Forgive me for being dense but what do you mean when you say?:

"I honestly dont think most American's would want to help kid's in this way."

You don't think that most Americans wish for the topic to be addressed in the schools? Is that what you mean?

I do see the merits of what many of you are saying. I guess children at 5 can discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate touch. I definitely see the point of validation of what's ok and not ok.

What would be ideal is that those who touched children inappropriately, were prevented from doing so.

I have lived in a much more patronizing society in the UK for 6 years. I have seen how wacko everyone gets when young children are being hugged and everyone suspects every touch has a sexual implication to it.

Jed--If this was, as you pointed out, merely an off-the-cuff answer to a question, then I have somewhat less fear.

Unfortunately, responses like this have a distressing tendency to become policy points down the road.  That distressing tendency must be resisted.

How many liberals that support Obama's view would advocate teaching kids at any grade level how to properly handle guns as to avoid the accidental shooting deaths from kids mishandling guns?

It's basically the same argument I see being made here by liberals but most liberals advocate guns should be illegal even though that view is unConstitutional. Pedophilia is already illegal so unless you're going to advocate teaching proper gun safety to children you're a bunch of busy-body hypocrites.

Yiannis, that is a problem too.  When kids are taught to fear something, as opposed to being educated about it, many will turn that fear back on people and accuse them falsely.  

Dave, most liberals do not advocate that guns should be illegal.  Many liberals believe there should be limits on the sale of some types of firearms, but you might be surprised how many liberals are gun owners and hunters.

"How many liberals that support Obama's view would advocate teaching kids at any grade level how to properly handle guns as to avoid the accidental shooting deaths from kids mishandling guns?"



I do hate word problems.  Wild guess, 163?

Romney seems to be on both sides of most issues, why should this one be different?

This wouldn't be an issue if parents stuck together, raised their children rather than let daycare, TV or the computer do the job. One parent works for income the other runs the house. Children need interaction from a mother and father daily.

If you can't commit to these basic rules then don't have children.

Hmmmm - comparing gun control to pedophilia.

Let's see. Pedophiles are adults who abuse children. Children need to understand that they are being abused and that it is ok to report the abuse.

Gun control - always possible to keep guns out of the hands of children. Guns in the hands of children are there when gun owners do not take care of the weapon.

Teaching gun handling to children doesn't make much sense. However, there are already plenty of avenues for them to learn such as firing ranges and so forth.

Where are the avenues for children to learn about abuse defense? Only in the schools because of the FACT that most abuse is done by a family member.

Dave - One would hope that parents who own guns would be responsible enough to a) not leave them in a place where their children would ever get access to them and b) teach their children about gun safety.  That is something more easily controlled by parents than molestation, which can basically occur anywhere the child goes.  

And to echo what others have said, liberals do not necessarily think all guns should be banned.  I don't.  But I also think there should be regulations that limit not only the type of gun people are allowed to own, but the manner in which those guns are purchased.  There should be mandatory waiting periods, and there should be extensive background checks.  There is also no reason for anyone to own a machine gun.    

Lyn I'm laughing my ... off Romney is the biggest flip-flopper the world has seen.

How much fun would it be to run against him

The degree of people's stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Obama is 100% right.  Kids should know since an early age what's inappropriate touching and know when to report it.

The media has already made 2 hit-jobs on Obama this week.  This story and the one about the # of donors.  Why haven't I read a single article about Obama cutting Hillary's lead in half in New Hampshire?

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:01 PM) and

Robert Catalano, Salem OR (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:08 PM)

Check the materials we are discussing.

I think you'll see that is very careful and subtle. However, Yannis, keep in mind that "hugging" and so forth is not what we are trying to control. If you have a very strong stomach, google "child abuse". I refuse to describe some of the most horrific things that are being done to children. If you are a 5 year old, how do you know that this isn't normal? All you know is that you feel really awful and that that person who is supposed to love and protect you is the one that makes you feel really awful.

If you aren't aware of these issues, please, please, please do some research. You will be amazed and horrified at how wide spread this is and of the fact that it is NOT restricted in any way to income level, race, or cultural environment.

Tony Weese (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:26 PM)

Sounds wonderful. Wish it were true. Until and unless it is proved to be that utopia, don't you wish for children to have as much chance of helping themselves find the help that they need?

I think it is the end of the day so I wish to thank all of you for the discussion. Maybe, this will help spread the word that this issue can no longer be kept in the dark.

Again, thank you

What is great about Obama is that he doesn't "skirt" sensitive issues. And sure this is a sensitive issue, but a crucially important one. Just scanning a few of the comments above, I see a few of the "wingnuts" spouting their pablum about the "government" corrupting the minds of children. And arguing that we should just "lock up all the sickos and throw away the key" as if that were even possible, let alone a realistic public policy solution to the problem. Mostly, however, I see comments from reasonable people on all sides of the political spectrum, who appreciate a leader who takes on these issues. Obama cuts across political lines with issues like this. The more I hear him, the more I like him.


What is fantastic about Obama's response is not only that it shows him as a thoughtful, intelligent leader who is willing to address problems, it shows his attackers as reactionaries who didn't bother to find out what he was really talking about before blasting him. As a result, he sounds intelligent and they sound ignorant. Serves them right.

Does it bother anyone that Senator Obama is a Muslim with Just as much devotion and obedience to the Koran as Mitt Romney has to his faith?
I'm all for teaching about apropriate and inaproriate touching education, but when people attack about religion.  There should be some balance there.

George Nephi, Utah (Sent Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:49 PM)

Absolutely false statement. Mr. Obama is a Christian. His father was a muslim. His mother left his father. Remarried. Mr. Obama was raised as a Catholic.

I'm not even an Obama supporter and I knew that.

You notice that MSNBC would not reprint Obamas remarks.
All a pedophile needs is an experienced child to satisfy a sick fantasy. That pedophile prevention excuse is just as bad as jobs Americans won't do. This is the mark of a disturbed presidential candidate that believes the government should control the sexual upbringing of a child instead of its parents, or basically deprive a child an essential part of natural evolution and discovery of ones own being.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE DO NOT LET HIM BECOME PRESIDENT. IF HE WINS IT WILL BE A INSULT TO BE CALLED AN AMERICAN. OTHER COUNTRIES TEACH THEIR CHILDREN HOW TO FIGHT IN WARS WHEN THERE SIX YEARS OLD AND WERE TRYING TO TEACH OUR KIDS SEX WHEN THEIR SIX YEARS OLD. WHICH ONE IT WORSE? TO ME THEIR BOTH EVIL AND SAD.

Yeah, but can they teach reading, writing, and arithmetic?

Hey, George,

This is from Wikipedia on Senators' religious affiliation:

United Church of Christ - 2 - Max Baucus, Barack Obama (2 Democrats).

Hey Obama makes sense AGAIN and is attacked by a right winger who misquotes and falsely implies what was said.  This is exactly the type of politics that Obama has rejected.  Romney looks like a jerk here.

Joe, Obama wasn't talking about sex education for children in the middle of the campaign. Romney was dumb enough to try and bring it up and twist it around even though he has checked that he supported age appropriate sex education on a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Obama was merely explaining his vote in a reasonable, logical and intelligent manner.

amac, why not the parents? This might shock you but sometimes the parents themselves are abusing the children. Without the knowledge that this is not appropriate and they are not bad because of it, some of these children face the possibility of being abused further and longer with no real help.

I've read many articles on the blogsphere about this headline and it's amazing the amount of rude and wrong reactions to it.  I wish the people out there could read these comments from very reasonable and understanding people.  I'd recommend those of you who understands what Senator Obama was saying to try and counter those mispresentations out there.  I fear the misrepresentations far out way the real meaning of what he said.

amac: In regards to why it is within the purview of the federal government to mandate the teaching of the sort of sex education being discussed in this thread. 1) Of course, parents are free to teach such to their kids within the confines of their own home and family, but 2) said kids spend much, perhaps most, of their time not in the home but in the outside world, in society.  3) Obviously, such kids' behavior and worldview--which can be drastically affected by their education, at home and otherwise--is a concern to members of their community with whom they interact. 4) Despite the fact that parents are free to provide their children "sex education," many either choose not to or are not capable of doing so in a reasonably effective way. And finally, 5) as such, society has an interest in picking up the slack because such children do not only affect those who live in their homes, but members of their community, e.g., classmates, future romantic partners, future victims (since predation often spawns further predation, etc.)

George, Utah: At what point in life has Senator Obama been a muslim?  Maybe you haven't seen how that FOX "Madrassa" ordeal ended.

In this conversation I think there is a point that hasn't been emphasized.  Child molesters are very rarely any sort of stranger.  Child molesters are almost always family friends or family members (parents too).  These are the people who can tell a child "it's okay" or get the child to agree not to tell anyone about it.  Be clear, when we're talking about child molesters, we're talking about these people (note that you really can't expect to make kids fear and distrust their family and family friends).

Here in Texas in the last gubernatorial election, our Lt. Governor's re-election campaign's main platform was mandatory 25 to life with death penalty option for child molesters.  It was a popular message.

The problem with this is children will still be sexually abused.  That is, this as a strategy is sitting on your hands and letting it happen, and then after the child is sexually abused then we do something, -- IF it get reported--.  And guess how often these crimes are reported (remember who the molesters are, by the way).  And then the molester has to be successfully convicted.  

So actually having a platform of 'just lock em up' is so naive that you'd almost think Mark Foley would have came up with it.

The 'just lock em up' strategy all hinges on the hope that if we increase the prison time, then pedophiles considering acting out will change their mind.  That's some wishful thinking.  Are we imagining someone saying, "well if it were 10 years in prison, I'd do it, but 20 years, don't think so."  (Notice how murder rates really aren't varying because we're changing the stiffness of penalty?)  The shame and humiliation of the scarlet letter they would receive is probably the deciding threat to them.  I mean, that's suicide-grade  (being caught).

People considering acting out on their pedophilia will do it because they don't think they'll get caught.  Sadly, they often believe the child will welcome their advances.  At least convince the child not to tell, or worst case, be in a position where you can just deny it and not have any evidence (hence their apparent trustworthiness, which also contributes to children expectation that no one will believe them if they do tell, win-win for pedophiles).  I don't think I need to explain how teaching good/bad touch directly attacks this.

I really do fail to see any good reason to be against the good touch/bad touch education.  The only other additional thing I would want to do is initiate more rigorous psychological (and maybe genetic, just in case) studies not just to figure out their profile, but to figure out if a psychological treatment could be formulated that could be available for anyone who feels they may have or are developing 'unhealthy' sexual motivations.  I'm not trying to propose a throw-back to the homosexual thing, I'm just saying if anyone wants to be tough on child abuse, you better be looking down every avenue for trying to stop the sexual abuse from ever happening, or you're just all talk.

Sorry to vent, but I get like this when I think there is sustained failure to understand a problem.  I'm not angry at anyone here or anything, when I say 'you' i don't mean anyone in particular, just the nation as a whole heh.

Obama is not a Muslim, where in the world did you get that??

as far as teaching kids about sex in kindergarten i believe it is a Parents duty.  Not a teacher or schools duty.  we as parents need to take sole responsibility for training and raising our young impressionable children about this topic.  my parents did for me and my sister and i believe it is the best possible way to handle it.  as far as not having the room or resources to put all the molesters/pedophiles in prison.  one solution and it should be done across the board for murderers, rapists and other major offenses as well.  Death penalty.  these people CAN NOT BE REHABILITATED!!!  the reason they put these "rehab programs" in place is another way to spend our tax dollars!  and keep the offenders voting for them.  i guess some absentee ballots count.

This is exactly why I became a Republican For Obama.

It's a shame that everytime someone talks about sex-education, all people hear is the SEX and not the education.

Romney was Pro-choice when he wanted to become Governor of a Liberal state, In 2002, Romney said he also supported age-appropriate sex education, today, he is Pro-life because he's running for President as a conservative and he thinks 'zero' should be the number of sex-education for children. What a sham! What a farce!
The republican candidates are so inconsistent and so fake that it's evidence of people who tout conservative values while they're closet pedophiles, wife-abusers, porn-lovers, etc. With Obama, what you see is what you get.

This is exactly why I became a Republican For Obama.

It's a shame that everytime someone talks about sex-education, all people hear is the SEX and not the education.

Romney was Pro-choice when he wanted to become Governor of a Liberal state, In 2002, Romney said he also supported age-appropriate sex education, today, he is Pro-life because he's running for President as a conservative and he thinks 'zero' should be the number of sex-education for children. What a sham! What a farce!
The republican candidates are so inconsistent and so fake that it's evidence of people who tout conservative values while they're closet pedophiles, wife-abusers, porn-lovers, etc. With Obama, what you see is what you get.

George, the only people who would vote against Obama because he happened to have a Muslim biological father probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. And much like Romney and his Mormonism, the attacks coming from that angle are likely to backfire and actually insulate the candidate from more substantive attacks.

This ought to be the lesson of the Clinton and Bush administrations, I think. When opponents attack everything, the silly attacks tend to drown out the valid ones. The end result is polarization, with opponents firmly convinced of evilness, and supporters convinced the opponents are simply attacking to attack.

Who knows. Maybe Obama and Romney will face one another in the general. Hopefully that will be a battle of ideas. Been too long since we had one of those.

CJ,

It's most definitely true. I sent the tip to Media Matters; they checked it out and posted it on their site.  He continued the same distortion on this morning's show w/o providing any context.  I encourage you to watch the show more often.  You will find that Joe Scarborough has a pattern of defaming Senator Obama, which is why he felt the need to respond to emails accusing him of having a racist attitude towards the Senator.  This was NOT an isolted event; it's a growing patter, and I can not believe that MSNBC and NBC News isn't checking him for it.

"treat the culprit to correct"??? What world do you live in?  There is no reliable treatement of sexual abusers.  Check the recividism stats even among those who have been so-called "treated".  The only treatment of sexual abuse is prevention--through knowledge.  Your question was NOT pragmatic because it was based on a false assumption that child molestation is not an epidemic.  Child sexual abuse is the most prevelant but unreported crime in this country.  When children don't understand what is happening to them, they can't articulate it. What is this pervasive fear of knowledge--at any age??  People opposed to sex education are the same people who believe that their 11, 12 or 13 year olds are complete innocents, not even kissing, when they are in fact s*ing and f*ing behind their parents backs.  I'm just saying folks need to drag themselves out of the 19th century and wake-up to what's going on in the real world.

Hey, it's only fair we do it here, since the "One Laptop per Child" program has given Nigerian children the opportunity to download pornography.

why does the left think the government's role is to teach or tell everybody what is right or wrong?  The answer is because the ideal goal, the profound truth, the underlying argument of the liberal is to be 'morally superior' to everyone else.  To the poor, black, hispanic, or white trash...the role of the liberal is to tell these people what is right and what is wrong.  You isolate a very small minority of the population who are at risk and you make it sound like it is a national problem.  For example, parents molesting their own children.  Come on, it's a very small percentage...but, according to some it's a national problem and we therefore need to 'teach' all the children.  Same thing with universal healthcare...you want healthcare...get a job.  I think Wendy's and Mcdonald's offer healthcare benefits.  

Vridar, Seattle, Wash--While some of amac's points aren't all that clear, her one point is: education is NOT a Feederal responsibility under our governmental system.  It belongs with the States and the localities (depending on how each State structures itself), or with the families themselves.  Nothing you said justifies Federal intervention in this.

I believe that there is a role for responsible sex education in a school cirriculum (even for the very young).  I also believe that the best thing the Federal government could do is not involve itself, and refer the matter to the States.  

And candidates for Federal office have the obligation to do the same thing.  When a candidate for President, the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. House speaks on this (or a similar) subject, it necessarily conveys the impression that the candidate believes this is something the Federal government has a responsibility for, and that, if elected, the candidate intends to advocate Federal involvement.

So long as Federal candidates continue to be involved in and speak about issues that don't belong in washington's lap, Washington won't get out of those issues, and people will continue to clamor for Federal involvement in things that the Federal government doesn't belong in.  This type of activity needs to be discouraged.  

amac (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 1:54 PM)

said:

"For example, parents molesting their own children.  Come on, it's a very small percentage"

Oh - if it is only a "very small percentage", well then, that makes all the difference doesn't it? Who cares about those children? They, obviously, aren't important, right? Let's just let them get ruined so that they, themselves will grow to do the same or even worse. That's just fine. No problem, there right?

I have a question: Are you pro-life? I am. I believe in protecting the unborn. I also believe in protecting those that are alive already. I simply do not understand how someone can be so callous as to not only relegate this issue to such a low level of importance but to actually not care that there exists a method that may provide early detection of such abuse so that the child in question can be helped. Simply, utterly, completely, amazes me.

For the last time - the item had NOTHING to do with federal intrusion - this item had only to do with Mr. Obama saying he supported schools who use this curriculum.

Shows a new level of desperatation by the Right to sully Obama.  Pathetic.

    I doesn’t surprise me one bit, that the thought of “Sex-Ed in Kindergarten” scares all of you narrow minded people out there, who tend to take things out of context and comprehend them with such literal thinking.  In this matter, Kindergarten “age-appropriate” content consists of discussing with children what appropriate & non-appropriate touching is, not only by their peers, but also by adults.  It is expressed to children as a SAFETY measure- just like we teach children to look both ways before crossing the street… it is for their own safety.  
    For those people who feel that “such discussions” aren’t necessary at a young age, or feel that the affluent neighborhoods and schools they encompass is protection in itself & “such discussions”, just wouldn’t pertain to “their” kids… For the sake of your children, I hope you’re right.  Unfortunately though, REALITY continues to paint a much more disheartening picture then those above.   As an elementary teacher, each passing year adds to the ever increasing number of children I encounter, whom have fallen victim to a sexual predator.  When listening to their stories you hear some common themes amongst them all, regardless of race, gender, or socio-economical status.  First, many children knew and trusted the person who abused them-(babysitter, family friend, relative, neighbor).  Second, when asked why they didn’t tell anyone right away, many of them stated that they were told by their predators that “it” was a secret & not to share this “secret about their friendship”, with anyone else.  
Each child fell victim to their predator’s trickery- tricking them into believing that they were their “friend” and as a “friend”, they would never do anything to hurt them.  Each child also didn’t have the power, to know or believe any different.  
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, & when the opportunity to gain such knowledge is taken away from children, you only place MORE power in the hands of child predators- they gain the knowledge that many of today’s children, in fact probably wouldn’t know the difference between appropriate and un-appropriate touching, because they were never given the opportunity to learn & know about it.  

Wake up America!  Obama is 100% correct on the matter.

Did bush not involve himself in Federal education with no child left behind. It is now ruining states that have long had excellent education programs in place. There are at least 7 states suing nclb and thinking about refusing fed. money in order to keep their programs in place. Seems like that was a real big involvment.

Jed--I don't think I said  Senator Obama was "pushing" the idea, nor do I think I said that it was a "bad" idea, or that he was "wrong" to answer the question.

My comments were directed to the way these things work sometimes.  A response to a question can morph into a policy idea which can then lead to more government action.  It is the morphing I object to.

If the senator's response was along the line of: "Of course age-appropriate sex education is or may be a good idea for studnets, even as young as kindergarten.  If you think it's a good idea, go take it up with your State legislators and your governor.  They have the power to make it happen.  The President does not.  I'm seeking the Presidency.  Next question," I probably wouldn't even have written into this chain.  

I fail to understand why people cannot draw distinctions between what belongs at the State level, and what is appropriate for discussion in a national campaign.  Neither left nor right seems to be able to grasp this very fundamental distinction.  It gets blurred every time somebody brings up education, gay marriage (which I support, incidently), housing policy, health care, and a hundred other matters that have nothing to do with the duties of the national government.  It frustrates me, and every time it happens I get a little more frustrated and a little more worried for the survival of our country.

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:17 AM)

I agree with you completely. I also think that most American citizens have no idea what the constitution does and does not say.

There is some justification, however, for the misunderstanding of the states rights issues. (That is why I've been saying that SCOTUS is gonna be where all the action is in the next 10-20 years.) We have become such a mobile society that I believe we don't really associate ourselves with a state anymore. Certainly not as strongly as Americans did up to the 20th century. In fact, I'd wager that most people don't even know that the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carefully detail the responsibilities of the Federal government to PREVENT incursion by that gov on the states and on individuals.

That being said, it may be time to consider updating that document (if it still exists after Bush, Cheney, et al. have finished shredding it) to reflect what roles the government has in ensuring some level of consistency across states where civil and individual rights are concerned. An example is,as you state, same-sex marriages. There is a powerful amount of housecleaning that needs to happen where our laws are concerned.

Independent, Texas--Thank you for understanding what I've been trying to say, and making it clear where I apparently could not.

You are correct in stating that the Consititution may need some updating.  I myself rewrote it five times between 1967 and 2001.  What does not need changing, however, is the idea that the national government is not the primary government.  Any changes must continue to emphasize that the national government must continue to be a government of limited and delegated powers, subordinate to the States except where national uniformity is absolutely necessary and national intervention is absolutely required.

Most areas of socieal endeavor do NOT require such a heavy-handed uniformity.  The States are quite capable, if left to their own devices and forced to do their jobs (and pay for them), of solving most of society's problems, either separately or by joint action (see the UCC, for openers).  The problem is that it has been made too easy for the States--they (and their citizens) run to Washington whenever there is a problem or concern, and Washington never sends them home to solve their own problem.  This has been the case since at least the 1930s, and, of course, the Supreme Court hasn't helped the matter by refusing to curb the practice.

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:50 AM)

I agree. Since an ammendment to the constitution takes 3/4 of the states to ratify, I think that strong state action on any specific social issue could lead to a quick and easy ammendment process. However, I don't see states going that route. I, being the cynic that I am, think that states kinda duck these issues because the general populace does, due to ignorance, tend to go the federal route first.

Taking the examples we've been discussing, same sex marriages, if 3/4 of the states independently addressed this in the same way, it would seem to me than a constitutional ammendment would fly through the process. In that particular instance, a federal opinion is required because of the impact on taxation that such unions would cause. If the union allowed dependents that are not recognized now by the federal tax code and all states do not have the same recognition of the unions, then taxation would be different across the states. Can't have that.

What do you think? (Gonna be some really interesting court action over the next few years.)

Independent--I don't think we need a Federal constitutional amendment relating to same-sex marriage.  Marriage is a traditional State prerogative, and each State has its own policies with respect thereto.  States are already at l,iberty to not recognize marriages which conflict with their own public policy (as in the case of defining incestuous relationships).  Gay marriage can be treated exactly the same way.

The Federal role with respect to marriage is derivative (or at least it was until the Defense of Marriage Act (1995) and the Federal blundering into child support policy): if a State recognizes a marriage as valid, the Federal government must, also.  If the State does not, the Federal government cannot, either.  There is no "Federal" definition of marriage, nor should there be, since that is left to the States.

This is exactly the type of encroachment the federal government should resist, and people should stop clamoring for.  Some may consider it "benign"--it isn't.  It is erosive of the Constitution and corrosive in its effect on the country's legal structure (which underlays our entire society, even if the economic determinists and others would prefer it not to be so).  THIS needs to be stopped--last year if not sooner.  Until it is, the country is at grave risk.

Richard (I think it is just the 2 of us now that this item has "fallen" off the main page.)

I agree with all your "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". The fact is, however, that all states currently have agreements in place that recognize marriages granted by other states. Therefore, the tax laws governing "spouse" for income tax purposes are not a problem. That will not be the case if/when some states start recognizing and granting licenses to same-sex unions. Some states have already published that those unions will void the agreement with those states and their own. Then, when an income tax return is filed with the feds, the couple from a same-sex-union state can and should list a dependent or claim the married status. The feds will have to accept that. A couple in a non-same-sex-union state will not be able to claim the same status on the income tax return. That is when the "not taxed the same" argument will take place. Appropriately so. Also, if the couple in the 1st example move to the state in the 2nd example, then they would have to file differently and, also, would not be able to claim spouse protection in probate and custody matters either. It is this kind of nitty gritty that most people fail to consider. Most people focus on the "fairness" part of such argument. They don't seem to realize that there is a mass of legal code that backs up all of this and all of it would need to be examined. Yep - gonna spend the next 10-20 years in the courts. Exciting, huh?

I really enjoy conversations like this but will accept if you are getting weary of it.

Thanks for your response.

Not at all, Independent.  I enjoy this kind of theoretical discussion (and jousting).

If there were a way we could contact each other directly, it would, of course, be preferable to looking for an archived post.

I don't know how to do that, of course, and I don't really want to post my e-mail address and invite all of the kooks, etc.

Any thoughts?

I have a temporary email address that will expire shortly. Independent@281.com. I set it up specifically to get in touch with some bloggers. Feel free to use it and I will, then, give you my "real" eamil address.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):