|
|
|
|
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:28:24 PM |
Does it bother anyone else that this decision that the California State Supreme court overturned was voter decided? I myself am very conflicted on this whole thing. While I really don't have an issue with same sex marriage personally, I'm annoyed that this issue was put on the ballot, overwhelmingly voted against, and now the Supreme Court has overturned it for being unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional, why the heck was it on the ballot in the first place? This is the part that I have a problem with.
I absolutely agree and this should be the real concern! When something has been decided by the Citizens of a state and the Courts overturn that decision... tends to tick me off.
Alas... sometimes these threads turn into sandbox pizzing contests...so, just wear a wetsuit and bring your sand shovel to play for a bit.  | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:51:23 PM |
If it was unconstitutional, why the heck was it on the ballot
The initiative process is such that any Tom,****or Harry can get an initiative on the ballot. All they need is enough signatures. Does that necessarily mean their initiative is constitutional? C'mon. I think you know better than that.
What if a ballot initiative came before the voters that said the Feds can no longer tax your income. That'd probably get a ton of votes and probably pass. But do you think it's constitutional?
Initiatives vs. the law and/or the constitution have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. It's apples and oranges. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:54:25 PM |
When something has been decided by the Citizens of a state and the Courts overturn that decision... tends to tick me off.
How about the California medical marijuana initiative passing and, notwithstanding that, the feds trotting in and busting (almost on a weekly basis) medical MJ dispensaries? Or how about the death with dignity initiative in Oregon. You don't think any doctors that openly followed that one wouldn'be arrested and/or lose their license? What the people want is often at odds with what the government is willing to permit. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 6:55:40 PM | | Damn politically correct asterisks. Sheeeesh. I guess****Cheney is a pejoritive too. Well, LOL, actually, he is. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:04:07 PM | | Well if you are correct Mr. Blue, and every Tom, D ick and Harry can get an initiative on the ballot, then that's probably what should be revamped. How bout we have the Supreme Court decide whether they are constitutional before they actually go on the fricking ballot? | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/16/2008 9:33:34 PM |
not at all dave, but I prefer extremely limited government. I wish the government would just admit that they can't do it all, instead of asking for more money. they can't manage what we give them now. you should know this too, I would like to wring robert byrd's neck. he's responsible for more pork than smithfield foods.
We may well have some areas of agreement. I grant that the government is not very efficient at spending money. I worked in state government for six years, and saw a lot of entrenched wasteful policies. It took three successive Governor's support for me to get a single fuel-efficient vehicle introduced to our agency motor pool, due to antiquated purchasing policies, and my boss nearly lost his job when he insisted our new office building be constructed to be energy efficient, even though the slight increase in construction costs were more than offset within the first two years of occupancy.
I support government setting policies and goals, then incentivizing private industry to meet those goals. My primary area of interest is the environment, but that strategy can be applied to all sectors.
I took issue with your broad characterization of politicians. Just this past week one of the organizations I volunteer for hosted a Sustainable Communities conference, and I was fortunate to share two meals with Paris Glendening, former governor of Maryland, our keynote speaker. The overwhelming feeling I got from all the conversation I had with him was that he was first and foremost a public servant, doing whatever he could to improve the quality of life for all. Now he's working for Smart Growth after several decades as an elected official.
I also introduced as a speaker and spent some time in conversation with one of our state senators, who was quite candid about how frustrating it is to craft legislation when lobbyists from all sides would rather fight for unreasonable extremes than join in reaching consensus on reasonable solutions. I felt a lot of empathy for him.
As for Byrd, I've had mixed feelings about him over the years. He has a tendency to 'give us a fish, rather than teach us to fish'. But he has also brought much needed improvements to the state. When he first was elected to the senate, WV had a grand total of two miles of four lane paved road. We were the last state in the union to complete the interstate system as originally designed under Eisenhower, but thanks to Byrd, we did get it done. And I was also very proud of him for taking the lead in standing up to Bush on Iraq. Now you want to talk about government wasting money...
Bottom line, I just don't see most politicians trying to rule by inducing fear, as you assert. Bush certainly has done that, no question, but he's the exception, (fortunately) not the rule.
Dave | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/17/2008 2:31:31 AM |
How bout we have the Supreme Court decide whether they are constitutional before they actually go on the fricking ballot?
That would be a great idea but it doesn't work that way. The court only rules on cases and not "ideas" people want to run up the flagpole to see who salutes it. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/17/2008 10:32:59 AM |
dude knows what I am saying.
I know what your saying, a the same time the way you said it certainly doesn't mean what you meant.
he is just a liberal trying to be witty. liberal.........witty. looks like I need to go back to the oxymoron thread they have in the off topic section.
Are you going to untwist your panties while you're there? God damn liberals pointing out my mistakes! A conservative would have just screamed DITTO RUSH DITTO! | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/17/2008 10:54:41 AM |
I know what your saying, a the same time the way you said it certainly doesn't mean what you meant.
was I talking to you?
Are you going to untwist your panties while you're there? God damn liberals pointing out my mistakes! A conservative would have just screamed DITTO RUSH DITTO!
didn't make a mistake. got taken out of context. rush is a f a g. | |
|
| today in california
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:25:57 PM |
I've always believed that individual states should decide on the matter of same sex marriages.. my state voted "no". Marriage is just a legal document anyway..it's becoming more of a partnership..
Just an utterance of disagreement with the above statement. There isn’t anything further from the truth. Marriage; the word, conjures up that once religious ceremony that led to a tradition that followed for thousands of years. At the time this country and its laws were being established, “marriage” just happened to work as a very convenient contractual form for determining a man’s property, ownership rights and the legal distribution upon death of a mans assets. The only inclusion of women in these “legal” contracts (regarding marriage) was their mingling of bloodlines with the male. As the years went by and women became independent, a great many laws evolved, new ones came into being and with each new finger, that the federal government extended into our daily lives, more laws were required and were easily attached to laws, that existed, based on the contract of marriage.
On January 31, 1997 the United State General Accounting Office fulfilled a request by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. A 58 page document ensued estimating a “collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor.” (Office, 1997)
There has been more discrimination discovered since that time, some estimate as high as 1400 laws in which GLBT are not allowed protection and benefit of, simply because they are denied to enter into a contract that the government "borrowed" from a religious tradition. WHY?
Because the creators of this country’s’ laws used a religious tradition wrapped up in a word by which to define a contract of property ownership and disbursment of MEN. The last great upheaval correcting similar discriminations within the law took place 100 years AFTER Lincoln ‘verbally’ freed black slaves. It took a Constitutional amendment called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to give black Americans, women and other racial minorities, the rights they had been denied “by law”. Black Americans, especially, were not always allowed all the benefits and protection of marriage either, as many “STATES” prohibited the “marriage” of a racially mixed couple, based on the religious interpretations of marriage at that time. It took the Federal government, the Supreme Court of this land, to stop that discriminatory action by making Federal Law binding. No state can override Federal law, they can, however, request the Supreme Court of this land to review and make amends for actions the state deems discriminatory.
Now, today, we have a President who puts the same religious slant into the law, only this time the bias is against GLBT. We have a Supreme Court that ignores the issue and rather than risk taking a stand against religion, in our laws, it has determined that such things need to be addressed at the STATE level.
The vote to ban same sex marriage in California was considered by some to be illegal as the California STATE constitution was never amended and did not include words that would deny same sex couples the right to marry.
NOW, what will happen, and what has already happened in many states, is that the religious right wing will attempt to raise some 10 million dollars to address this issue within the California Constitution at the next session. At the same time the GLBT, and all those supporting equality, will attempt to raise an adequate amount of money to fight the religious right.
In many states ALREADY, there have been constitutional amendments defining marriage, similarly to the Federal code (a contract between one man and one woman).
The States in this instance have taken a cue from Federal documentation and just as the Federal code allows discrimination to exist within Federal law, so the States have determined that discrimination is justified at the state level.
What happens from there is that prejudice, hate and bigotry are allowed to flourish at city, local and township levels and in business, in schools between neighbors……..
When will it stop and how much will it cost this country!
Office, U. S. (1997, January 31). archive. Retrieved 5/17/2008, from www.gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
