Needed:  Redefining the citizen-government relationship.  If we were to step back from public protests concerning “hot button public issues” and reinterpret those protests, we would begin to see that protests are generally a symptom of an archaic and conflicted relationship between citizens and their government.  Because there has not been an intelligent and rational process to redefine that relationship, as it exists collectively and individually, it is neither a responsible nor an irresponsible relationship, but an a-responsible relationship.  Public issue resolution is fraught with confusion because the relationship between citizens and their government is over 200 years out of date!  Again, (Posts #36, 62) adaptability was not built into the U.S. Constitution.  And as it exists, it does not lend itself to adaptability or redefinition of the public-government relationship to become a co-responsible symbiotic relationship.  

Paternal surrogacy.  Now, let us return to Colorado Amendment 67.  You will soon see how absurdly askew the relationship between citizens and their government may become:  If the paternalistic relationship between government and citizens remains as it does today, then citizen approval of Colorado Amendment 67 would put the government in the position of becoming the surrogate parent of any children born to mothers (and fathers) who would otherwise have chosen to abort the pregnancy.  Those parents or parent may have a legal case to demand child support from the public, via their government, who violated the mother’s and father’s right of self-determination.  In a society that is striving to bring stability, reason and the “common good” into play in all things, that is a highly immoral position for everyone.  And, if such a case were to come before the court, would the court require support of the child through college, much as many divorce decrees now require of both parents?  Hmmmm.  

Proactive social policies.  In an evolved, responsible symbiotic relationship between the public, its government and individual citizens, all public social policies are designed to be proactive, rather than reactive.  That is, public social statutes would be designed to create solutions to social issues rather than reacting to them as symptoms.  We already know that reactive statutes and social policies eventually become a patchwork of “fixes” that create further complexity.  Such symptom-fixing social policies and their subsequent “fixes” never LEAD the public into responsible option-development, choice-making and decision-making at the individual level.