Congratulations, you're now the solution to all our problems.

[Valerian]

First some rules:
1. No mention of the candidates (at all). This is a thread of what you would do, not somebody else
2. You can be as detailed or general as you want.
3. You can question someone's "policies" for clarification, but not debate them. This is a thread about what YOU would do, not what you think somebody else should
4. Be respectful.

I think it's safe to say that no one posting here will be collecting many presidential votes.  Let's keep this thread on track and free of too much extraneous comment, mkay?

[ShrowdedPoet]

I mostly said it to be funny.

Seriously though, my actual stance is that the legal institution of marriage shouldn't exist (Not the practise though, I have no objection to people declaring a monogamous love and commitment to one another). People's love, friendship, family and sexual relationships are not matters for the government to decide or regulate beyond protecting people from harm.

Frankly, I don't even know how I managed to get elected. Apparently someone was interested enough to allow an Australian to become the president of the U.S. and put me in power.

Still the fear of losing power is the downfall of democracy. Democracy will never achieve anything so long as politicians are cowardly vote-mongers. If I am to enter the political sphere it is by loudly announcing my intentions honestly and following through with them, taking whatever consequences fall upon me for doing so. If you like my policies then vote for me, if you don't then don't.

However since I would be doing exactly what it says in my election promises then I can't see myself getting impeached, apparently people have already voted for me so I assume they're in favour of my plans.

Wow, now I think I'm even more confused.  I figured you were saying it to be funny.  So you believe that the institution of marriage is wrong?  Can you explain that to me.  I've never even thought of that.  But I would love to hear what you have to say.

[ShrowdedPoet]

1. Eliminate the minimum wage

How do you plan on accomplishing this?  Are you just going to get rid of minimum wage and let people get paid 10 cents an hour?  How will you combat corrupt people abusing this?

[Caehlim]

Wow, now I think I'm even more confused.  I figured you were saying it to be funny.  So you believe that the institution of marriage is wrong?  Can you explain that to me.  I've never even thought of that.  But I would love to hear what you have to say.

Sure, thing, though I'm mostly used to Australian law so some of what I say may not match up to your experiences.

I think that if a man and a woman fall in love and wish to spend the rest of their life together, possibly raising a family together, then that's fantastic. I also equally believe that if a man and a woman has lustful feelings for one another and wish to spend a night together and never see eachother again that's also fantastic. Along with everything in between. Ditto for man and man, woman and woman, many people of assorted genders, the intersexed, the transgendered and all permutations thereof in all the wonder and variety that nature and technology allow.

If people want to wear rings or invite their families to ritual to announce these intentions then I support their decision. Likewise if they wish to call eachother husband and wife or invite religious leaders to speak at these events. I think this is all just fine.

However... I do not think that any of these should influence taxation, hospital visiting rights, inheritance or any other mechanism of society. I do not believe that divorce procedures or prenuptual agreements should exist. I do not believe that marital status of parents and thus bastadry of children should influence anything (note: Now it does not, however in the middle ages it did).

In Australia, one common complaint of the gay community is that when a man bequeaths superannuation to his wife it has a very low tax rate (it might be zero, I can't remember exactly) whereas should he bequeath it to his boyfriend it has a much higher tax rate.

Situations like this shouldn't exist. The solution, to my mind, is not to allow gay marriage with all the same rights and regulations as straight marriage, but to remove the word marriage from every law. A person's marital status should not matter when they speak to a police officer, judge, lawyer, politician or any other person of authority.

If it matters to them, their family and their friends though, then I think that's fine and fantastic.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Sure, thing, though I'm mostly used to Australian law so some of what I say may not match up to your experiences.

I think that if a man and a woman fall in love and wish to spend the rest of their life together, possibly raising a family together, then that's fantastic. I also equally believe that if a man and a woman has lustful feelings for one another and wish to spend a night together and never see eachother again that's also fantastic. Along with everything in between. Ditto for man and man, woman and woman, many people of assorted genders, the intersexed, the transgendered and all permutations thereof in all the wonder and variety that nature and technology allow.

If people want to wear rings or invite their families to ritual to announce these intentions then I support their decision. Likewise if they wish to call eachother husband and wife or invite religious leaders to speak at these events. I think this is all just fine.

However... I do not think that any of these should influence taxation, hospital visiting rights, inheritance or any other mechanism of society. I do not believe that divorce procedures or prenuptual agreements should exist. I do not believe that marital status of parents and thus bastadry of children should influence anything (note: Now it does not, however in the middle ages it did).

In Australia, one common complaint of the gay community is that when a man bequeaths superannuation to his wife it has a very low tax rate (it might be zero, I can't remember exactly) whereas should he bequeath it to his boyfriend it has a much higher tax rate.

Situations like this shouldn't exist. The solution, to my mind, is not to allow gay marriage with all the same rights and regulations as straight marriage, but to remove the word marriage from every law. A person's marital status should not matter when they speak to a police officer, judge, lawyer, politician or any other person of authority.

If it matters

INTERESTING!! *is thoughtful*