A key statement I have heard in the last year is: Every child born gets a social security number almost at birth. As soon as the number has been assigned, the state begins calculating how much money that newborn citizen will make in the future. This estimate of productivity goes into a fancy calculation that allows the state to borrow money based on the future earnings of that tiny newcomer. Since the United States does not really have any money of its own and is in debt to the eyeballs to the Federal Reserve, this is a critical factor. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that lends money to the government, and it’s clear that Uncle Sam is in the same boat many of its citizens are in – financially bankrupt for all intents and purposes. Thus, every citizen is encouraged to get caught up in the romantic illusions served up by media – which uses sex to sell everything from soup to cars to medications – with the goal of keeping the birthrate steady in order to provide more tax-paying citizens. The media has other goals such as distraction from what the politicians are doing, or keeping us too tangled up in one another's dramas to pay attention to what is happening in Washington DC, but a steady population is a must for any country of means. Every national government thinks they own the people who live in their territory, and the more people there are, the more workers there will be to pay taxes and make goods and luxuries for those at the top. Therefore, marriage is a way of producing more subjects to work for the 1%. Given the above, what makes us think the Supreme Court is a good place to decide on the question of same-sex marriage, which is not likely to produce more children who can be counted on to be good producers and tax-paying citizens? How can an arm of the government make a decision that will cost that government big money? Sometimes the people on both sides of an argument remind me of little kids fighting with one another who then run home to Papa to 'tell' on one another, blaming one another for all sorts of unfairness, hopefully influencing Papa to intervene in their favor and settle the argument. This is one of those times. We are here to learn and grow in wisdom and consciousness. How can we do this if we keep handing all the decisions to someone else? Those who claim that marriage must be between a male and a female should live that way. Those who have other ideas should live according to their own ideas. This issue is not nearly so much about male and female as it is about money, power, national governments, and lessons around fairness and being judgmental in negative ways. Are we passing the course or are we flunking?