California State Measure Results

[Heracles 417]

Our state also voted down gay marriages by a 60% margin, hell if they want all the liabilities of a marriage contract that will save the tax payer money, it's fine with me. Of course, the religious spoke out against it, quite strongly.

Now that Bush it out of the way I am sure religion is going to be the next punching bag. #### all of the good they do right, just focus on the negative. I don't know about anyone else here but I have never been to a church that preaches hatred. For anyone to sit here and make it out as if being religious represents being foolish and hateful is just wrong.

Religion can be used for good or bad. Like anything else, we tend to focus on the negative rather than the positive. A core principal of Christianity is that we have no right to judge others.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Aficionado

[akdiver 3]

What's wrong with the courts?

There are a lot of things wrong with the courts. They don't enforce the constitution for one thing. And by the way, in case you haven't noticed, the courts are government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Our state also voted down gay marriages by a 60% margin, hell if they want all the liabilities of a marriage contract that will save the tax payer money, it's fine with me. Of course, the religious spoke out against it, quite strongly.

Now that Bush it out of the way I am sure religion is going to be the next punching bag. #### all of the good they do right, just focus on the negative. I don't know about anyone else here but I have never been to a church that preaches hatred. For anyone to sit here and make it out as if being religious represents being foolish and hateful is just wrong.

Religion can be used for good or bad. Like anything else, we tend to focus on the negative rather than the positive. A core principal of Christianity is that we have no right to judge others.

If that's true - why are there religious movements that are pushing political messages about gay marriage?

If they have no right to judge and they hold this as a core principle - shouldn't they simply mind their own business?

[akdiver 3]

If they have no right to judge and they hold this as a core principle - shouldn't they simply mind their own business?

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's wrong with the courts?

There are a lot of things wrong with the courts. They don't enforce the constitution for one thing.

And there's clearly a lot wrong with allowing the public to make decisions on behalf of minority groups that has the effect of permitting repression and discrimination against them.

And by the way, in case you haven't noticed, the courts are government.

I had. But thank you.

If they have no right to judge and they hold this as a core principle - shouldn't they simply mind their own business?

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner.

We had a winner some time ago. But as far as this vote goes - I suspect there are more than a few losers.

[NickD 203]

That may well be true - but that doesn't seem to be the main focus of the objections that have been raised in regard to it, and it seems to be a largely ideological issue for the most part.

That may be. But it refutes the notion that the issue does not affect them in the slightest.

But please remember not to confuse me with the people you claim are bigots. I don't care who people marry. They can marry an office chair for all I care. (:

Gee I like my office chair, deep leather cushions with air vents that do not make a fart sound, high back, comfortable arm rests, rocks back and forth, can spin like a top on it, and with five ball bearing rollers, can scoot across the floor. But never thought about marrying it, can't imagine taking it to bed with me.

[akdiver 3]

And there's clearly a lot wrong with allowing the public to make decisions on behalf of minority groups that has the effect of permitting repression and discrimination against them.

I don't see any difference between allowing "the people" to make such decisions and allowing "the government" (including the courts) to do so. If people have their liberty as human beings infringed upon, what difference does it make who the infringer is?

But never thought about marrying it, can't imagine taking it to bed with me.

I feel the same about a lot of people (: Edited November 5, 2008 by akdiver

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And there's clearly a lot wrong with allowing the public to make decisions on behalf of minority groups that has the effect of permitting repression and discrimination against them.

I don't see any difference between allowing "the people" to make such decisions and allowing "the government" (including the courts) to do so. If people have their liberty as human beings infringed upon, what difference does it make who the infringer is?

But never thought about marrying it, can't imagine taking it to bed with me.

I feel the same about a lot of people (:

It doesn't - but on issues like this its pretty clear what is right and wrong. Arguing about protecting traditional values - when those values aren't really under threat is simply insane.

[akdiver 3]

It doesn't - but on issues like this its pretty clear what is right and wrong. Arguing about protecting traditional values - when those values aren't really under threat is simply insane.

but the point still remains - what difference does it make who the infringer is? What satisfaction is there to be gained by having, for example, SCOTUS tell you that you can't have a gay marriage, rather than having the local electorate tell you this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't - but on issues like this its pretty clear what is right and wrong. Arguing about protecting traditional values - when those values aren't really under threat is simply insane.

but the point still remains - what difference does it make who the infringer is? What satisfaction is there to be gained by having, for example, SCOTUS tell you that you can't have a gay marriage, rather than having the local electorate tell you this?

The way I look at it - if we've reached a point in time where traditionally repressed minorities (women and blacks for example) have won equivalence in terms of their legal and civil rights, do we really need a public referendum to address similar issues of discrimination pertaining to another minority group?

[akdiver 3]

The way I look at it - if we've reached a point in time where traditionally repressed minorities (women and blacks for example) have won equivalence in terms of their legal and civil rights, do we really need a public referendum to address similar issues of discrimination pertaining to another minority group?

Well, it would seem that a majority of the voting public in California would say "yes".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The way I look at it - if we've reached a point in time where traditionally repressed minorities (women and blacks for example) have won equivalence in terms of their legal and civil rights, do we really need a public referendum to address similar issues of discrimination pertaining to another minority group?

Well, it would seem that a majority of the voting public in California would say "yes".

It would. But that doesn't really answer my question.

[jundp 191]

Religion can be used for good or bad. Like anything else, we tend to focus on the negative rather than the positive. A core principal of Christianity is that we have no right to judge others.

Then what is Prop 8 if not the religious judging others?

[akdiver 3]

The way I look at it - if we've reached a point in time where traditionally repressed minorities (women and blacks for example) have won equivalence in terms of their legal and civil rights, do we really need a public referendum to address similar issues of discrimination pertaining to another minority group?

Well, it would seem that a majority of the voting public in California would say "yes".

It would. But that doesn't really answer my question.

How does it not answer your question?? The California voters have answered it.

Religion can be used for good or bad. Like anything else, we tend to focus on the negative rather than the positive. A core principal of Christianity is that we have no right to judge others.

Then what is Prop 8 if not the religious judging others?

It could be non-religious judging others too. Also - some people just need other people to hate. Doesn't matter who, or why, or what the reason is. They just need a target onto which they can project their own dissatisfaction in life.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The way I look at it - if we've reached a point in time where traditionally repressed minorities (women and blacks for example) have won equivalence in terms of their legal and civil rights, do we really need a public referendum to address similar issues of discrimination pertaining to another minority group?

Well, it would seem that a majority of the voting public in California would say "yes".

It would. But that doesn't really answer my question.

How does it not answer your question?? The California voters have answered it.

They've voted on the proposition, certainly. But that doesn't really address the question of whether a vote was needed to begin with.

Perhaps we're not at a point where civil rights are largely set in stone or that they can be assumed for others on the basis of the experiences of other minority groups who were subjected to repression. But it seems to me that we're not at a a point where we're going to see a regression to racial segregation laws or for taking away minority's voting rights.