California State Measure Results

[dalegg 143]

Did I see that San Francisco didn't pass legalized prostitution?

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

I haven't seen the ballot used but some people tend to vote for President and State and then go quickly down the line with 'YES' or 'NO' so perhaps there is more to be seen or thought about than mere people imposing their beliefs on all else. Nevertheless, much like the more crackheaded Republicans will have to swallow their own bitter pill of defeat, so will the opponents of this proposition and attempt to find alternative mechanisms to use California's legal and judicial system to achieve equality for all in the State unless of course, the issue can be Federated at the national level.

[dalegg 143]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

I haven't seen the ballot used but some people tend to vote for President and State and then go quickly down the line with 'YES' or 'NO' so perhaps there is more to be seen or thought about than mere people imposing their beliefs on all else. Nevertheless, much like the more crackheaded Republicans will have to swallow their own bitter pill of defeat, so will the opponents of this proposition and attempt to find alternative mechanisms to use California's legal and judicial system to achieve equality for all in the State unless of course, the issue can be Federated at the national level.

crackheaded? I'm more of a garden variety dope-headed Republican I think.

[Peikko 1,575]

Prop 8 loses and anyone who doesn't like that is a hater.

Prop 8 wins actually. The proposition was put forward by so called 'supporters' of 'traditional' marriage. The fact that discrimination is unconstitutional doesn't seem to have permeated fully down the line. As for 'hating'. Disappointed of course, but you see, despite what people like you think, I don't hate people who don't see things from my point of view. I will continue the discourse though.

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

I haven't seen the ballot used but some people tend to vote for President and State and then go quickly down the line with 'YES' or 'NO' so perhaps there is more to be seen or thought about than mere people imposing their beliefs on all else. Nevertheless, much like the more crackheaded Republicans will have to swallow their own bitter pill of defeat, so will the opponents of this proposition and attempt to find alternative mechanisms to use California's legal and judicial system to achieve equality for all in the State unless of course, the issue can be Federated at the national level.

crackheaded? I'm more of a garden variety dope-headed Republican I think.

Worry not brother Dale. You I do not think are wallowing in self-flagellating angst at the Obama win.

*HAL 9000 reaches for a Heineken Light and passes it to you*

[dalegg 143]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

I haven't seen the ballot used but some people tend to vote for President and State and then go quickly down the line with 'YES' or 'NO' so perhaps there is more to be seen or thought about than mere people imposing their beliefs on all else. Nevertheless, much like the more crackheaded Republicans will have to swallow their own bitter pill of defeat, so will the opponents of this proposition and attempt to find alternative mechanisms to use California's legal and judicial system to achieve equality for all in the State unless of course, the issue can be Federated at the national level.

crackheaded? I'm more of a garden variety dope-headed Republican I think.

Worry not brother Dale. You I do not think are wallowing in self-flagellating angst at the Obama win.

*HAL 9000 reaches for a Heineken Light and passes it to you*

I cannot believe you remembered that!

[akdiver 3]

Akdiver, citizens aren't much versed in law, so letting citizens decide on these aspects of law is pointless and dumb. The government took away slavery, the government took away suppression of women, the government took away Jim Crow laws / segregation, the government took away, in several states, the banning of marriage between gays.

Soon, it will be taking away your money - even more of it.

Courts determine constitutionality of everything related to law. Laws, statutes, initiatives.

That's true.

Their say is the last word.

Actually, that's not true. This is the nature of separation of powers and checks and balances. If the court says something is not constitutional, that's not the last word. Congress and the states can change the constitution (the states can also change it on their own, without Congress). This has happened several times - the constitution was specifically changed to avoid a court ruling (for example, this is how we got federal income tax). Also, as President Andrew Jackson said, referring to SCOTUS, ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" The court has no enforcement power at all. It can simply make declarations and hope the rest of government abides by them. So, overall, it's hardly accurate to say courts, even SCOTUS, have the last word.

Now - however - I will agree with you on one point - which I addressed early in this thread. I don't think citizens should be making law either. That's why I vote against initiatives, no matter what they say. Of course, I also don't think citizens should be voting for senators or the president - which is the way the government was originally set up. Hell, there was a time when citizens didn't even get a popular vote for electors! Those were the good ole days.

So see there? We found a way to agree on SOMETHING at least (:

Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again, the most surprising vote in these state props is the redistricting one. Can't believe people managed to spot the political means behind the 2 energy propositions but not the redistricting measure. #######.

I haven't seen the ballot used but some people tend to vote for President and State and then go quickly down the line with 'YES' or 'NO' so perhaps there is more to be seen or thought about than mere people imposing their beliefs on all else. Nevertheless, much like the more crackheaded Republicans will have to swallow their own bitter pill of defeat, so will the opponents of this proposition and attempt to find alternative mechanisms to use California's legal and judicial system to achieve equality for all in the State unless of course, the issue can be Federated at the national level.

crackheaded? I'm more of a garden variety dope-headed Republican I think.

Worry not brother Dale. You I do not think are wallowing in self-flagellating angst at the Obama win.

*HAL 9000 reaches for a Heineken Light and passes it to you*

I cannot believe you remembered that!

I am an AI brother Dale... *COMPUTERIZED LOL*

[akdiver 3]

If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all.

Anti-gay marriage people use a similar argument.

We might as well abolish entirely it in favor of many open relationships with no legal entanglements of any kind.

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!! Like I said, government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Let marriage exist among the religious - with no meaning under civil law at all. If people want to create a civil contract amongst themselves, let them write the contract and let the courts enforce it under contract law like any other contract.

If you get rid of the monogamy (which is what really defines marriage) - the entire concept of marriage becomes pointless.

That is an incredibly skewed viewpoint. There are many cultures that have an alternative viewpoint that is just as valid as the "traditional western concept" of marriage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Prop 8 loses and anyone who doesn't like that is a hater.

Prop 8 wins actually. The proposition was put forward by so called 'supporters' of 'traditional' marriage. The fact that discrimination is unconstitutional doesn't seem to have permeated fully down the line. As for 'hating'. Disappointed of course, but you see, despite what people like you think, I don't hate people who don't see things from my point of view. I will continue the discourse though.

If I hated people who voted for Prop 8, my relationship with friends and family in CA would be a lot different than it actually is.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all.

Anti-gay marriage people use a similar argument.

We might as well abolish entirely it in favor of many open relationships with no legal entanglements of any kind.

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!! Like I said, government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Let marriage exist among the religious - with no meaning under civil law at all. If people want to create a civil contract amongst themselves, let them write the contract and let the courts enforce it under contract law like any other contract.

If you get rid of the monogamy (which is what really defines marriage) - the entire concept of marriage becomes pointless.

That is an incredibly skewed viewpoint. There are many cultures that have an alternative viewpoint that is just as valid as the "traditional western concept" of marriage.

I can't envisage how that would work. I guess it is the ultimate in 'everyone for themselves' though.

[akdiver 3]

I guess it is the ultimate in 'everyone for themselves' though.

Just contract law. We have very, very, very complicated contracts in place and being regulated by the courts already. There is nothing new here.

States (or whomever) could even put out a "standard contract" as a template for people to start from and modify as they see fit.

FWIW - I also don't think taxes should be based on marital status - regardless of who or what someone is married to.

Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course there is. The marriage contract is unlike other contracts because the participants do not get to decide how the contract works, the state does. When it comes to things like family and children, that is necessary or it would seem to be judging by the lack of responsibility some parents take for the welfare of their children.

Well, again, it's down to the idea that society is organized as family units - I don't think there is a society anywhere where the notion of family has broken down to be utterly meaningless.

[akdiver 3]

Of course there is. The marriage contract is unlike other contracts because the participants do not get to decide how the contract works, the state does.

And this is precisely the problem, and why government should get out of the business. Imagine that - people deciding for THEMSELVES how their marriages should work, rather than the government deciding for them. What a radical concept.

Well, again, it's down to the idea that society is organized as family units - I don't think there is a society anywhere where the notion of family has broken down to be utterly meaningless.

So - if you have no family, life and your place in society is meaningless....got it. Edited November 6, 2008 by akdiver

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all.

Anti-gay marriage people use a similar argument.

If you insist on taking my statements completely literally with no latitute for interpretation - I'm not really surprised you'd trot that out. Sure - they do use a similar argument. But that isn't what I was getting at, so I'll rephrase: If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all - because it completely annihilates the established legal structures that define what marriage is, and what benefits are accorded to a "married" couple under law.

Gay marriage requires the smallest amount of tinkering with the law books. Plural marriage requires them to be thrown out in their entirety and rewritten.

We might as well abolish entirely it in favor of many open relationships with no legal entanglements of any kind.

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!! Like I said, government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Let marriage exist among the religious - with no meaning under civil law at all. If people want to create a civil contract amongst themselves, let them write the contract and let the courts enforce it under contract law like any other contract.

But... the concept of marriage isn't something that the religious establishment has exclusive ownership of. It hasn't for decades - hence the reference to civil marriages and quickie Vegas weddings. People who marry in that fashion are, in the eyes of the law, no less "married" than people who get married in a church, mosque or synagogue.

If you get rid of the monogamy (which is what really defines marriage) - the entire concept of marriage becomes pointless.

That is an incredibly skewed viewpoint. There are many cultures that have an alternative viewpoint that is just as valid as the "traditional western concept" of marriage.

It would be if I were actually talking about those other cultures (examples?); but as I said earlier - I was talking specifically about this country and its culture.