California State Measure Results

[Danno 1,228]

It's funny how we love the system of Govt premised on:"Of BY and For the People"... when "The People"

clearly speak on an issue... we look for ways to undue it.

It is pathetic to put more faith is a few Black robed Judges, then the whole of The People.

[jundp 191]

It's funny how we love the system of Govt premised on:"Of BY and For the People"... when "The People"

clearly speak on an issue... we look for ways to undue it.

It is pathetic to put more faith is a few Black robed Judges, then the whole of The People.

Moral issues have no place in constitutional amendments. A constitution of a state should not be "defining" a word.

And, frankly, I don't understand how a state can vote down a measure that would give parents the right to know if their minor daughter was having an abortion, yet pass a measure telling a person who they can or cannot be legally united with.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

It's funny how we love the system of Govt premised on:"Of BY and For the People"... when "The People"

clearly speak on an issue... we look for ways to undue it.

It is pathetic to put more faith is a few Black robed Judges, then the whole of The People.

Moral issues have no place in constitutional amendments. A constitution of a state should not be "defining" a word.

And, frankly, I don't understand how a state can vote down a measure that would give parents the right to know if their minor daughter was having an abortion, yet pass a measure telling a person who they can or cannot be legally united with.

Sister jundp, thee is wise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For one you kind of have to assume that everyone who would sign up to this kind of arbitrary marriage contract is in their own right mind at the time and their inalienable rights (such as human rights are defined by the constitution and bill of rights) wouldn't be infringed by an unscrupulous partner or an incompetent lawyer.

That's true for any contract.

It would create a massively complex bureaucratic nightmare that puts the current system of red tape to shame.

If you were able to sign your rights away at the outset of marriage...

..and so naturally, you assume that people would be signing over all their rights....

I'm not assuming people would - just that people can and often are taken advantage of. And determining who went into said contract, under what pretense or mitigating circumstances would create epic scale court cases that would be borne at the expense of the court system (which the public pays for).

What you're suggesting....

Is allowing people to decide for themselves how their marriage should work, and maximizing liberty.

Except that it wouldn't protect liberty - it would turn it into a survival of the fittest (or the most legally savvy).

You don't need to throw the rule book out of the window simply because one group of minorities is seeking a slight rule change to protect their interests.

So you should only protect against discrimination, if it is convenient to do so.

I think the operative phrase would be one step at a time. Once again - gay marriage is far less disruptive to our existing legal framework than plural marriage would be. To use another analogy what you're doing essentially is scoffing at the idea of going to Mars and asking why we don't go to Alpha Centauri instead - never mind that small setback of not having the know-how.

Would you want to pay for all that red tape?

I pay for "red tape" every day.

Of course you do. But why would anyone want to foot the bill for (a lot) more of it?

Edited November 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

It's funny how we love the system of Govt premised on:"Of BY and For the People"... when "The People"

clearly speak on an issue... we look for ways to undue it.

It is pathetic to put more faith is a few Black robed Judges, then the whole of The People.

Moral issues have no place in constitutional amendments. A constitution of a state should not be "defining" a word.

And, frankly, I don't understand how a state can vote down a measure that would give parents the right to know if their minor daughter was having an abortion, yet pass a measure telling a person who they can or cannot be legally united with.

There was a very large advertising budget spent on prop 8. The pro side concentrated on persuading the peeps that gay marriage was a "threat" to young children and would have the state tell the church that they 'had' to marry a gay couple, like it or not. Plus of course the added sentimentality of the 'preserve the traditional marriage' (whatever the hell that is meant to mean when you take into account what us straights have made of marriage over the last 60 years or so)

That said, the proportion of people against it has markedly dropped since the last time this question was posed.

Very, very little money was spent on prop 4 and I only saw a couple of ads none of which were very informative.

Of course, I support the idea of allowing for a minor to not tell her own parents about an abortion, because I do believe that there are occasions when a young girl needs protection from her own parents as well. To say that parents 'must' be informed precludes that possibility.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's funny how we love the system of Govt premised on:"Of BY and For the People"... when "The People"

clearly speak on an issue... we look for ways to undue it.

It is pathetic to put more faith is a few Black robed Judges, then the whole of The People.

Not really, these black robed judges are really somewhat smarter than the average Joe's out there when it comes to matters of principal. Average Joe gets a little invested in the outcome, hence, well bias and bigotry.

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a serving to the religious people about "of the people" and "fairness".

When they don't outright admit abortion stances are about religion, they point to adoption.

In one key state gays adopting was just banned.

Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too. And people wonder why courts do not respect these opinions, as well as the educated public? Religion has no place in collusion with government.

Edited November 7, 2008 by SRVT

[IAMX 3,055]

Btw, there's protests (<--- all over the state) for and a few riots going on in the Bay Area.

[Danno 1,228]

Here's a serving to the religious people about "of the people" and "fairness".

When they don't outright admit abortion stances are about religion, they point to adoption.

In one key state gays adopting was just banned.

Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too. And people wonder why courts do not respect these opinions, as well as the educated public? Religion has no place in collusion with government.

No matter the conversation, it always comes back to Religion with you SRVT

I'm beginning to think you are a bit of a religious fanatic.

Q: You know you can tell a fanatic?

A: They can't change their mind... or the subject.

According to you.. only a religious Kook would view Gay marriage as unhealthy for society...

Must be a whole lot of Kooks in the Country as it seems these amendments get passed, every time they are put to voters.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are a lot of religious zealots and fundamentalists in the US.

[Danno 1,228]

There are a lot of religious zealots and fundamentalists in the US.

Care to guess at the percentage?

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a serving to the religious people about "of the people" and "fairness".

When they don't outright admit abortion stances are about religion, they point to adoption.

In one key state gays adopting was just banned.

Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too. And people wonder why courts do not respect these opinions, as well as the educated public? Religion has no place in collusion with government.

No matter the conversation, it always comes back to Religion with you SRVT

I'm beginning to think you are a bit of a religious fanatic.

Q: You know you can tell a fanatic?

A: They can't change their mind... or the subject.

According to you.. only a religious Kook would view Gay marriage as unhealthy for society...

Must be a whole lot of Kooks in the Country as it seems these amendments get passed, every time they are put to voters.

There has been plenty of racists too. Jim Crow laws were allowed, and popular. Bigotry is nothing new in this country.

Nor am I suggesting this sort of shite should have ever come up for a vote. It isn't anyone else's place to decide marriage terms for another. Hence why this is increasingly becoming overturned.

Funny thing is, I used to be religious, one-sided, and homophobic, as well as uneducated about homosexuality -- when I was a kid, of course. Then I got educated, and stopped being "a bit of a religious fanatic", realizing it isn't my place to tell others who they should marry. What's stopping you?

Edited November 8, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Interestingly....

"Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50," according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

So, it would seem that of White, Hispanic and Black voters in California - whites are the least bigoted of the bunch.

Edited November 8, 2008 by akdiver

[Danno 1,228]

Here's a serving to the religious people about "of the people" and "fairness".

When they don't outright admit abortion stances are about religion, they point to adoption.

In one key state gays adopting was just banned.

Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too. And people wonder why courts do not respect these opinions, as well as the educated public? Religion has no place in collusion with government.

No matter the conversation, it always comes back to Religion with you SRVT

-

-I'm beginning to think you are a bit of a religious fanatic.

Q: You know you can tell a fanatic?

A: They can't change their mind... or the subject.

According to you.. only a religious Kook would view Gay marriage as unhealthy for society...

Must be a whole lot of Kooks in the Country as it seems these amendments get passed, every time they are put to voters.

There has been plenty of racists too. Jim Crow laws were allowed, and popular. Bigotry is nothing new in this country.

Nor am I suggesting this sort of shite should have ever come up for a vote. It isn't anyone else's place to decide marriage terms for another. Hence why this is increasingly becoming overturned.

Funny thing is, I used to be religious, one-sided, and homophobic, as well as uneducated about homosexuality -- when I was a kid, of course. Then I got educated, and stopped being "a bit of a religious fanatic", realizing it isn't my place to tell others who they should marry. What's stopping you?

Well you see, that's where we disagree.

I think it *IS* our place to collectively decide all kinds of things, like:

-What are the Purposes of prison (Punishment or rehab)?

-Should the death penalty be used and if yes, what method and in what circumstances?

-What are drinking ages or what is the age of consent?

-Should abortions be legal and if so, are there any limits?

-What is the age limits for marriage, can siblings marry, can same sex or multiple people marry?

- Is prostitution legal or drugs... or gambling.

The list goes on and on.

Take Abortion for example, if The People" really wanted Abortion outlawed, we have the power to pass an amendment to the US constitution, but there not overwhelming numbers for that so it hasn't happened.

Anyway,

These are all things we collectively decide as a community or as a nation, by direct vote or by representation.

One of the wonderful things about the USA is the way Each state has a certain amount of latitude

to govern themselves.

Who was it that said each state is a "laboratory in democracy". Many countries don't have this.

We can look at other states and see what works .. and what doesn't.

But in the end, citizens most certainly DO have the right and responsibility to decide these issues to make or change law... and even Constitutions themselves.

This is still a country "Governed by the consent of the People".

[Ban Hammer 14,078]

Interestingly....

"Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50," according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

So, it would seem that of White, Hispanic and Black voters in California - whites are the least bigoted of the bunch.

interesting.