|Prop 8Page 2 of 52 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)|
|To a significant degree, homosexual males appear more often in the lineage of particularly fertile women. Other evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is the result of social factors present during childhood and adolescence. But the science of homosexuality being a choice versus an inherited trait is still too unsettled, and the debate continues.|
My question is, why does the origin of homosexuality matter in the decision whether it should be legitimized by elevating it to a fully acceptable social status?
Posted: 10/21/2008 10:40:45 PM
No, the debate isn't biology vs choice....it's about what you want,just because y0u want it & you don't need to explain to anyone else why you want it.
What chu talkin' bout Willis?
The debate is about whether gays should have the right to marry versus settling for civil unions or domestic partner status.
... there's no evidence of nurture vs nature vs choice vs chance vs changing your mind
There is plenty of evidence pertaining to these factors in determining sexual orientation. If I may make a suggestion to you, please go read the scientific studies on the subject so your opinions have the force of being informed behind them. Currently, the scientific winds blow in the direction that sexual orientation is more a result of social factors than biological predisposition, but you don't seem to be aware of that.
& who needs that when being who you are doesn't involve yourself in someone else's life unless they demand it to, in which case they are intruding on your freedoms.
I'm sorry, I have no effing idea what you are saying. Please say that another way to help me understand.
Posted: 10/22/2008 12:14:11 AM
I think that you and Willis are in violent agreement on this one.
Time for a beer and sammich!
Bottom line? Who cares why two people want to marry? As long as they don't burden the rest of us with kids they won't care for, it's nobody's business but theirs.
Posted: 10/22/2008 1:21:57 PM
|Who is the moral police? You? Me? Who the hell are we to judge ANYONE about morals? Two people of the same sex that want to be together and have the same rights is not IMMORAL in my opinion. And it isn't beside the point. I'm sick and tired of judgemental RELIGIOUS people dictating what is moral and what is not. And that is exactly what this is all about. Christians denouncing anyone what doesn't goosestep to their doctrines and what it says in some book written by MAN that had his own agendas concerning what he thought the passage he was transcribing should say and therefore replaced a word or sentence, etc etc etc. |
Too many friends of mine were ill, dying, and their partner couldn't even go see them. All they bought and owned together was given to the partners family, NOT the partner. They loved each other, and the government chose to ignore them AS partners because most in the government are the MORAL POLICE. Pisses me off.
Posted: 10/22/2008 1:32:43 PM
|True. But from my experience, it's been Christians. I'll take Christ...as long as He doesn't bring his followers along, thanks in advance.|
I believe it was ghandi that said "I like your Christ. I'm not impressed with Christians". I agree.
| Miss W|
Posted: 10/22/2008 2:05:34 PM
It's not just Christians who are against this,all religions(Islam,Judism,etc) are against gay marraige.
All religions? Try searching for gay Episcopalians, for there are gays who have been ordained. Search for gay Jews and you will find some tolerance. It may not be so tolerant in Islam, but it does exist as there are many groups for them.
Posted: 10/22/2008 4:30:44 PM
|Jonathan Haidt is my favorite psychologist at the moment. He studies the psychology of morality. He says that it is often very difficult for people to draw the distinciton between disgust and moral repugnance.|
People who regard homosexuality as immoral are ignorant about that difference.
Just because someone doesn't like the idea, that doesn't make it wrong.
He also identifies different views on morality. For classical liberals, morality is about respecting the individual rights of others. For traditional conservatives, morality is about upholding the institutions that confer respectability and sanctity in what can otherwise be a crazy life. Both views have their place.
However, when authority figures use "moral" reasoning to interfere with the rights of others, such reasoning is flawed. When they appeal to disgust to reinforce their claims, they engage in demagoguery.
Haidt points out that such "reasoning" usually comes after the fact anyway. It isn't that God doesn't approve of homosexuality. It's that a particular person doesn't like the idea and finds evidence to support her/his view in the Bible/Koran/Talmud/whatever. God also doesn't approve of people eating pork, and working on the Sabbath is cause for immediate stoning. But these self-style moralists _like,_ pork, and they feel _entitled_ to work if they need to. So, God must not care so much about those things.
I'm with Mom on this one. Get the state out of the marriage business and make them all civil unions. Contracts are a legal matter. Let the churches handle the sanctification business. That's their job.
Posted: 10/22/2008 9:37:21 PM
|I see nothing wrong with your post, barbe, to make some folks not send you a christmas card. It is heartfelt and honest. With that said, I agree that "marriage" means man and woman. If you are religious. A civil union would suffice, but even most voters with a religious persuasion disagree with even that right. They don't want any kind of legal union because it's "immoral" and goes against their "teachings" and it's frowned on in "that book" of which I spoke earlier. So again, it all comes down to religion.|
Posted: 10/23/2008 3:19:50 AM
You seem to be claiming that gay marriage is solely a political question. Therefore, any church that allows a preacher to speak about it publicly should lose its tax-exempt status. But to many millions of Americans, it's mainly a religious question. You sound like you want to deny all these people the right to believe something you don't. I don't see what gives you any more right to your beliefs than anyone else.
I've seen the word "sheeple" a lot. It's one of many examples of snide, insulting buzzwords some people use when they can't make a reasoned argument. It's a shortcut meant to appeal to the emotions of people who don't like to think much more than those who use it. It's also extremely arrogant--just who do you think you are, to so glibly dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a thougtless follower in a vast flock of dupes--the "sheeple?"
Posted: 10/23/2008 3:50:51 AM
|sock puppeteer, |
That's pretty good. Actually, I meant literal sodomy. But I guess taxation could be considered another form of it. I agree with your list of horribles. I'd add to it a major national security crisis. It's unsettling that Sen. Biden is so sure we'll confront one soon, if the ticket he's on is elected. I can hardly wait! I'll never forget how exciting it was, during that week or so in October, 1962, to go to bed each night wondering if I'd live to see the next morning.
Posted: 10/23/2008 12:26:03 PM
Abstaining is, I think, a good plan when you're conflicted.
I wonder if you would agree that what the government sanctions is a civil union anyway, while "marriage" is a religious thing.
Do you see difference between the marriage contract and the "holy estate?"
Posted: 10/23/2008 1:24:05 PM
I'd add to it a major national security crisis. It's unsettling that Sen. Biden is so sure we'll confront one soon, if the ticket he's on is elected. I can hardly wait! I'll never forget how exciting it was, during that week or so in October, 1962, to go to bed each night wondering if I'd live to see the next morning.
You can see it coming: Venezuela welcomes the Russians in to set up a military base there and our new Messiah of Needed Change responds by calling for diplomacy, and dialogue, and singing Kumbaya around the campfire. Rome burns, we fiddle.
Since the dollar will be demoted to sharing the benchmark status with a basket of other currencies, China stops buying the T-bills that we print out of thin air each week to keep our deficit spending going. (Gotta pay for those vote-getting entitlement programs, since the dumbed-down citizenry is as foolish as the ruling elite is corrupt. But fear not, the Messiah of Needed Change will do what all socialists do, which is take the capital from the doers and give it to the do-nothings via his new promised spending programs. Wow, what a great idea in this day and age... Spend your children and grandchildren into guaranteed bankruptcy. More sodomy, anyone?)
The fun really begins when Iran sinks some freighters to pinch off the ability for us to get the oil out of the Mideast, and our gasoline hits $12 to 15 per gallon and our remaining prosperity vanished in weeks. Then you will see a real meltdown. Israel panics and lights up Iran, Russia jumps in, Europe capitulates, and your bookie lays down odds on who goes nuclear first. Watch for martial law here in Amerika.
But, we busy ourselves with trying to decide if we should allow grown up consenting adults to live their lives together in a full social status relationship, the same one that features the same cohesive family bonds that has served the hetero families so well all along.
As Rome burns, maybe we could learn to play Kumbayah on our fiddles.
| Miss W|
Posted: 10/23/2008 1:55:12 PM
I feel so silly devoting so much of my time to getting a date... when I could instead be digging a hole to live in...
Perhaps your date can help you.
Barbe, I commend you for not voting when you are torn on the issue.
Posted: 10/23/2008 2:20:16 PM
As Rome burns, maybe we could learn to play Kumbayah on our fiddles.
Ya, well, those crazy environmentalists and other pinkos who use any "cause" to further their unabashedly communist agenda would have ruined our entire empire already if we God-fearing righteous souls hadn't held the line and maintained our inalienable right to burn as much fuel as we possibly can in our suburban assault vehicles.
Who needs to be efficient when you're the most powerful military force the world has ever seen? Who needs to cooperate when you can impose your will forever? Praise God and pass the ammunition, we'll defend to the death our eternal right to dwell in Autopia.
Sock, I hate to bust your chops here, but if it's a choice between socialism for the super-rich and socialism for the rest of us, I'd like a share. Can you honestly say that our current President as come anywhere near close to earning his keep? Do you think his cronies have done much of anything to earn theirs?
Well, if enabling the bankers and the government to snatch the rug out from under all those retirment accounts and take the wealth of all those working people they sold on the OC Houswives Edition of the American Dream--while keeping us all distracted with crazy, expensive, and wealth-concentrating misadventures overseas--they've done very well indeed. Iraq has been nothing if not a transfusion from the taxpayers to the arms merchants and defense contractors, that's for sure.
Do you really think that the major oil companies have "earned" the windfall profits they're making now? What service have they provided us all in the long run? Are we a day closer to being energy self reliant than we were 30 years ago? And why should GM and these insane lenders get subsidies and bailouts when it is their mismanagement that has left us all so vulnerable to a two-tanker shot in the Strait?
If you read the assumptions implicit in _any_ basic textbook about the free market, you will see that it governs SHORT TERM decisions in conditions of PERFECT INFORMATION. Even of you have perfect information, there is no guarantee that a market will evolve a workable, let alone sustainable, national economic policy over time. In fact, what is more likely to happen is a tragedy of the commons syndrome. Isn't that exactly what a boom-bust cycle is? And guess what, after 8 years of free-market ideology (which in my mind is just a smoke screen for socialism for the rich--since the finance people all understand the limitations of the market), we have ... NO VIABLE NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY.
There is a place for government planning in deciding what businesses we should focus on developing and the research we should pursue. There is a place for government regulation, particularly when accurate information is difficult to obtain or there are significant barriers to effective competition. There is also a place for taxation of windfall profits and even government intervetion when corporations are found to be operating against the public interest. Antritrust is just one case in which the government, acting as the agent of the people, might have cause. (Yes I know that is a radical idea. Call me a heretic! But think about it. If Exxon had faced a threat of liquidation, they would have gotten right on the clean-up of the Valdez disaster.)
If we find ourselves challenged and unable to rise to the occasion in the next 4 years, will it be because Mr. Obama doesn't have what it takes, or because the problems he inherited are intractible? Do you think that 4 more years of the same, or perhaps even greater neglect, petulance, and impetuosity will help?
There is a difference between rational economic policy with a long-term focus and socialism. But not if you ask our friend Rush. He couldn't tell a policy from a picket fence. But I hope that the rest of us will start to learn how.
Boy, ... get me started!!!
Meanwhile, we're either a state that stands for equality under the law or we're a state that stands for religious intolerance. Considering how much violence has been done in the name of religion, silly little items like Prop 8 are just as important now as when we're all feeling rich. Perhaps even more so.
Posted: 10/23/2008 2:21:22 PM
I'm going to be very unpopular after this post I have a feeling....but oh well, I guess my Christmas card list can be cut down a few... I'm very conflicted by the proposition personally. I do feel that "marriage" is the union between a man and a woman.
Barbe, your opinion on the subject is just as valid as anyone elses. So, no worries--vote it the way you see it.
Um, but you might want to avoid showing up at any Cher or Melissa Etheridge concerts for a while…
Posted: 10/23/2008 4:36:17 PM
|Ace of Space|
Doing a much better job of protecting the environment is a good idea in everybody’s book, but Kyoto, carbon credits, and global warming are political inventions, and they have caused divisiveness, which delays accomplishing the goal. And isn’t it funny now that The Other Cartel (congress/Big Oil/Detroit) has found the no-go price point on gasoline that suddenly all of the automakers are unveiling electric cars that were under wraps for years? Years that spanned Democratic and Republican presidencies?
If you are referring to the invasion of Iraq when you mention our military power, have you noticed that we haven’t seized the Iraqi oil fields? When China becomes the stronger military power in the world, watch out. They will redefine the phrase “abuse of power” to make our military-industrial complex look like schoolboys. And yes, our M.I.C. has indeed made huge money from this war, as it has from day one with all our wars. Halliburton has made money for its investors (including members of the U.S. Congress) since the late 1940’s. Both political parties have dirty hands over that.
And Iraq was invaded for several other reasons beside feeding the M.I.C.; such as Saddam’s repeated treaty violations after the Gulf War surrender. You can’t blame Bush for enforcing war treaties, since the U.N. consistently issued resolutions to comply but then continually refused to enforce their responsibilities, so Bush does their enforcement job for them and goes in, and Congress signed off on it. Another (and incredibly over-attributed by the yellow journalists) reason was the perceived threat of WMD’s existing there. They existed according to Clinton, Putin, Israel, the British, and most other intelligence agencies. Saddam had a year to truck them into Syria. Another reason was that our being in Iraq has helped keep next door Iran in check for several years now. Another possible reason was that Saddam was threatening to start selling oil based on euros and come off of the dollar. A very impolite, but good enough by itself reason to go in if you want to preserve the U.S. economy. The vast majority of us do, even liberals.
As to earning their keep, the fact that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld managed to thwart another 9/11, or worse, for this many years deserves notice. Nobody expected that we could avoid getting hit again for this long. But the liberal media won’t pay that homage, since they are not journalists. For that reason alone, Bush has done his job. But he also has caused inexcusable damage by excessively expanding Medicare (to buy votes) and letting the cheap labor enter our borders illegally (to keep big business/campaign contributors happy), so I am very angry with him beyond his being a one trick pony (terrorism). His cronies are different from the liberal Democrats’ cronies? Did you see the number of corporate jets parked in Denver when Mr. Obama was orating in front of those styrofoam pillars? This is why I am no longer a member of a party. I’m hoping that 4 years from now, there will be such disgust amongst the citizenry after the Messiah does his own version of screwing things up, that the people will find the 5 to 10 billion dollars it will take to make a 3rd party viable by buying media time. The robber baron special interests will try to defeat anything that threatens their chokehold on the Democratic and Republican parties.
As to ”windfall” profits made by oil companies, the inconvenient truth is that their profit margin is smaller than most other industries’. However, they do control the process from ground to pump, and they price collude with each other on the end product. But the overall price of gasoline is not that steep on a relative comparison basis. In the 1960’s, families spent 8% of their income on gasoline, until a year ago, we spent 5% to 6%. It is higher now due to demand competition from India and China, and it was relatively low for years because of improved vehicle mileage standards. (There, I threw you a bone, and I do agree with that sort of reasonable government regulation.)
“GM and these insane lenders get subsidies and bailouts when it is their mismanagement that has left us all so vulnerable to a two-tanker shot in the Strait?” Ace, Congress is the perennial whore, and the rich special interests are the perennial johns. The citizens are off entertaining themselves, while their children clog shopping malls during summer break instead of libraries. People don’t know the issues or their politician representatives, so they get screwed by electing (but only at an embarrassingly low 45% or so voter turnout rate) empty-suit charismatic politicians. Then they complain about how the Little Guy has no say. Duh.
“.. after 8 years of free-market ideology (which in my mind is just a smoke screen for socialism for the rich--since the finance people all understand the limitations of the market), we have ... NO VIABLE NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY.” Well, when there was reasonable government regulation in place (Glass Stegal for one), the liberal Democrats got rid of it, starting with Jimmy Carter and then exacerbated by Bill Clinton. Now the government owns the banks and the money, so the liberals have finally achieved government socialism. They will enjoy their power over everything, until the United States becomes an also-ran, like socialist Europe. Then it will be Bush's fault.
My liberal friends are often admirably more intelligent than me or many conservatives, but they just don’t know jack shit about human nature. People do not perform equally or at the same level, yet the liberal and socialists long for a system designed around the flawed presumption that people are created equal in intellect, ambition, and temperament. And when liberal ideology inevitably screws societies up, then they prescribe more government control over everything, ignoring the fact that the (former) greatness of this country was the result of a government that secured the borders, regulated interstate relations, provided a military while allowing a citizen militia, and let pioneers go build a life for their families and form communities while keeping most of the fruits of their labor. Back then, the government stuck to the powers it gave itself in the Constitution. (And it was quilled in ink, not pencil...)
“If Exxon had faced a threat of liquidation, they would have gotten right on the clean-up of the Valdez disaster.” I would not favor the dismantling of their productive infrastructure by liquidation, I would favor ripping money out of their stockholders’ hides, and imprisoning their upper management unless reasonable steps were taken to mitigate the physical and economic damage. I’m all for that type of government power. But, things like ship captains getting drunk and causing untold damage will occur now and then, so we all have to live with a certain failure rate that exists in all activities. Since Valdez, our environmental protection has vastly improved, thanks in part to the liberal agenda. Look at how the hundreds of Gulf oil rigs can now withstand several hurricanes every year and not cause spills.
I hope Obama does indeed have what it takes, and even though he has never run a small business, or a podunk hick town, or run a state, he has written articles for his school paper, and shouted through bullhorns around the streets of Chicago organizing stuff... community stuff. But I believe the problems are almost intractable. And it is naïve to believe that Mr. Obama will govern without some cronyism (Freddie Mac, etc. ring a bell?), neglect, petulance, and impetuosity since we already know his is as arrogant as Bush and Cheney. And I really do hope he does well, because he is my president, too. But more importantly, it will take a cacophony of lasting outrage expressed by the citizens to counter the grip the rich-elite-special interests have on our society. It is the fault of the average citizen that we have enjoyed our success on the world stage and the resultant prosperity to the degree that we have become fat and lazy, and we have abdicated our responsibility to govern ourselves. We The People are getting what we deserve, and since the late 1970’s.
As to a national economic policy, you will not get one (that serves the people) until you fumigate the U.S. Congress, particularly the Senate.
-- whew -- (Ace, you liberals are alternately amusing and infuriating, so now I need a beer. C'mon, I'll buy you some European free-trade brew that is trendy and hard to pronounce. And you can wait until I'm done drinking it out of the bottle before you bother me with recycling. But you can pour yours into a cute, frosted mug chilled by the solar power panels on the roof. Forget public transportation, I'll drive, and yes I have an SUV... Is that Che Guevera tee shirt you wearing made out of hemp? Is he still in U-2?)
Again, the fact that Prop 8 is on the ballot is due to the judicial activism and the over-stepping of boundaries by the California Supreme Court after the people had spoken. No matter how you vote on Prop 8, the fact that this initiative earned its way onto the ballot is the type of self-governing behavior we need to see from the voters. For or against, please vote.
Posted: 10/23/2008 8:54:54 PM
I really do hope he does well, because he is my president, too. But more importantly, it will take a cacophony of lasting outrage expressed by the citizens to counter the grip the rich-elite-special interests have on our society. It is the fault of the average citizen that we have enjoyed our success on the world stage and the resultant prosperity to the degree that we have become fat and lazy, and we have abdicated our responsibility to govern ourselves.
On this much we agree.
How 'bout if I buy you a Sierra Nevada pale ale? They brew it right in every way.
Here's to a very interesting election and a diversity of viewpoints! So vote already!
Posted: 10/23/2008 9:06:13 PM
No worries... It is relatively easy for anyone--gay or unmarried--to prepare powers of attorney for legal affairs and also health care directives to make health treatment decisions. These documents vest backup powers to run your life in someone of your choosing if and when you become incapacitated by accident, illness or old age. Giving property and money to someone to inherit from you is easily accomplished by a will, but a living trust is vastly preferable for several reasons.
The trouble is that IF a couple has a standing durable power of attorney and one of the partners needs emergency, there have been cases of medical staff not taking the word of a same gender partner in the way that they would a heterosexual partner. In addition, it is generally recommended that same gender couples rewrite their wills annually for a minimum of three years because of the incidences of families challenging them.
If you want to make marriage a religious thing only, why not go ahead and call that "Holy FishPaste" or something. Changing the hundreds of thousands of legal references to "marriage" and all forms of "spouse" to reflect equality under the law is not possible. There are too many instances.
BTW -- anyone's family fall apart int he last four months? I hear that that will be the outcome of having this whole same gender marriage thing. So far, my family is doing just the same as we were before all these "threatening" marriages.
If we really want to modify our state constitution to take away the civil rights of a group of people -- ANY group of people, the slippery slope is that anyone with enough support can then add whatever language in there to start taking away the rights of other groups.
What is that quote? Something about "first they came for the Jews, but I didn't do anything because I was not a Jew..."?
Posted: 10/23/2008 9:44:12 PM
It was not because of the Supreme Court that women got voting rights. State legislatures began to enact statutes giving them these rights, and by the end of World War I women had either partial or full voting rights in about half the States. In 1919, a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congess approved a proposed 19th Amendment and sent it to the States. A little more than a year later, the legislatures of the required three-fourths of the States had ratified the Amendment, making it part of the U.S. Constitution. The 19th Amendment prohibits the federal and all state governments from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote on account of sex.
And if anything, the Supreme Court SUPPORTED slavery. Most historians agree that the Court, with its 1857 Dred Scott decision, inflamed the dispute over slavery and helped bring about the Civil War. (The Court held that neither Africans brought here as slaves nor their descendants could ever be U.S. citizens. Therefore, they had no right to sue in a U.S. court. Also, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in all territory of the Louisiana Purchase north of a certain line, violated due process by depriving persons of property--slaves--without due process of law.)
Posted: 10/23/2008 11:01:18 PM
|Voting to allow gay marriage,|
Effectively legalizing prostitution in SF,
Legal "medicinal" MJ,......the list goes on........
(I can see the dorsal fins of the sharks headed my way already!)
.......maybe just anarchists.
Posted: 10/23/2008 11:17:09 PM
Voting to allow gay marriage,
Nope. Same gender marriage has been found to be a constitutional right by the California Supreme court. No one is voting to allow anything. Prop 8 asks Californians to specifically deny rights to one group of citizens.
Posted: 10/24/2008 12:23:22 AM
You suggest this amendment could lead to even worse civil rights violations. You even going so far as to imply some similarity to the Holocaust! (Incidentally, summoning up the specter of some American Third Reich is a pretty tired way of playing on people's emotions--the movies and spy novels have already overworked the notion.)
I guess the U.S. Supreme Court will just turn its back, as powerful, sinister forces change the California constitution to deprive one group after another of some "civil rights." Funny, though, that in 200 years, they've never let anyone take over a state that way. And, I suppose, the people who drew up this proposition for the ballot are so stupid they just threw something together in a few hours--never, of course, using any lawyers--that so obviously violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution anyone could see it. Please.
You paint a lurid picture of a slippery slope into tyranny--but why should anyone think the proposition presents anything even remotely like that danger, except in your imagination? I notice you don't specify what rights the constitutional amendment would take away, or point to any source for them in law. Does some section of the state constitution I missed grant homosexuals the right to marry? Which one? I thought the idea they could came from a recent California supreme court decision.
And if a majority of California voters wants to amend the state constitution to supersede a decision of the court, so what? That's how the process works. The same's true at the federal level--if the Supreme Court holds some part of an act unconstitutional, Congress can just change the act so that holding no longer applies.
Posted: 10/24/2008 7:25:45 AM
|MzTaken: Good rant, lol! Well done! |
Posted: 10/24/2008 9:41:21 AM
|I think that we're seeing a fundamental conflict of values being played out here, one that is _very_ interesting to observe.|
On the one hand, we see people who value the institutions and mores of society, who believe it is those institutions that keep us safe, secure, and on track with our lives. They don't like to see those institutions tampered with even when others can demonstrate that they are being harmed by them. (Some might argue that domestic partnerships confer the same rights as marriage and so what, but we couldn't argue that about slavery and racism, yet kept that going for 500+ years.)
On the other hand, we see people who value the rights of individuals and believe that the purpose of the institutions ought to be to advance and protect the rights of all. They believe that institutions are instruments that should be refined and improved, or even done away with, as needed to advance the cause of freedom.
What I find so amazing is that so many people believe both things--one when it comes to business and the economy, and the other when it comes to social institutions and customs. People who identify as conservative often feel that social institutions should be inviolate while governmental/economic institutions that might interfere with their freedom of choice should all be dismantled. People who identify as liberals often feel that governmental/economic institutions should be strengthened while social institutions that would restrict free expression should be dismantled.
All very puzzling. Could it be that we're all just a bit torn between a desire for freedom and a desire for belonging, and that this tension creates a crazy split in us all?
Posted: 10/24/2008 9:49:43 AM
I suppose, the people who drew up this proposition for the ballot are so stupid they just threw something together in a few hours--never, of course, using any lawyers--that so obviously violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution anyone could see it. Please.
It wouldn't be the first time that an ill-conceived initiative was placed on a ballot for reasons of prejudice.
I notice you don't specify what rights the constitutional amendment would take away, or point to any source for them in law.
The right to equal protection under the law, which confers benefits to people who marry and denies them to others who are not married. Denying benefits on the basis of gender or sexual preference is unconstitutional.
And if a majority of California voters wants to amend the state constitution to supersede a decision of the court, so what? That's how the process works.
No law, nor state constitution, can legitimately deny a right that is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It is ultimately the courts that decide what is and is not constitutional. If the proposition is found to violate the right to equal protection, it can still be voided and should be. That is also how the process works.
The majority can _never_ vote to deny the rights of a single individual and expect their opinion to hold sway. We live in a system of majority rule, it's true, but only up to a point.
52 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)