Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hugh_Hoy

California's Gay Marriage Ban Upheld by State Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Soooo, in a democracy, what the people WANT means nothing??? WTF...democracy means that the gov DOES what the people want...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soooo, in a democracy, what the people WANT means nothing??? WTF...democracy means that the gov DOES what the people want...

 

I think that is what some here would like...especially in those cases where their position is rejected by the voting citizens. They would like a "Star Chamber" of unelected rulers make the laws that can not otherwise be enacted; rulers who meet in secret; rulers appointed for life; rulers who can not be over-ruled. Fucking wonderful. (Sarcasm.) Yet, these same people talk about "freedom" when rule by the citizens is most basic to a democracy. I perceive a bit of hypocrisy in their approach.

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flash,

 

I'd amend that to make MOST everything legal. Not murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc. But the 'vice' laws are complete bullshit in a free land of free people, consenting adults. And tax it for the benefit of all to pay for the things we want and need as a modern society: schools, roads, public transport, etc.

Cent

 

So, you are in favor "taxing" freedoms? ;)

 

HH

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo, Cav and HH, if the voters of California voted in favor of a proposition (by, say, 50.0001%) that banned interracial marriage, then you would be OK with that?

 

Just curious ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chappie...I would be more in favor of that than having ONE (US Supreme Court justice) out of over 300,000,000 citizens rule otherwise. So, I guess the answer is "yes". That does not mean that I necessarily agree with the majority, but I feel strongly that the will of the majority should come first. I've taken my "lumps" in the voting polls in the past like a man and moved on. Life goes on...without some nitwit judge/justice making decisions without compromising the will of the majority.

 

At least in the instant matter, it was not merely "one" state supreme court justice who ruled against the appellants. It was an overwhelming 6-1 ruling. And it wasn't a strike against gay marriage per se. It was an affirmation of the right of voters to decide what laws should be legislated. And that is what I support.

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was an overwhelming 6-1 ruling. And it wasn't a strike against gay marriage per se. It was an affirmation of the right of voters to decide what laws should be legislated. And that is what I support.

 

HH

 

First, you are absolutely correct, in that the CA supreme court ruled, in essence, that the CA proposition law valid, and therefore prop 8 was valid. It was not, as many are trumpeting, an affirmation against gay marriage per se.

 

As a resident of Ca, I have a lot of problems with the notion that we should manage the state's affairs via propositions. We now have a situation where all sorts of weird, cleverly worded propositions appear on the ballot that, on the surface, appear innocuous, but are often at cross purposes with what they purport to offer. For example, the Caltrans workers are constantly putting up "rebuild CA" propositions for mega projects, that put the state further and further into debt. T. Boone Pickens put up a proposition to provide a tax credit for LNG fueled cars, with T. Boone naturally selling us the LNG. The vast majority of the population has no idea what they are voting on, and it boils down to who can scream the loudest on TV. For example, the prop 8 crowd was shouting that, without prop 8, the state of CA was going to require that elementary school children be taught about gay marriage (and thus, presumably, about gay sex) in public schools. It was utter rubbish, but the message sunk in with a lot of morons.

 

So I guess my problem with the proposition process is that it has been hijacked by special interests on both sides fo the aisle, and it is making the state almost unmanageable by government. And while the latest proposition might not affect your rights personally, the next one might. And without a change to the way propositions reach the ballot and then get approved, the will of the people might end up biting you in the ass next.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California could pass 20 propositions, preventing racial marriages, and they wouldnt mean anything. In 1967, in Loving versus Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that any law restricting marriages based on race is null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's suppose then, for example, the California's Latino population becomes a majority, and they enact a proposition stating that all public school classes must be taught in Spanish. No federal statute or supreme court ruling against that.

 

I know it is an extreme example, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say about propositions is sooooooo true. Still, I think the initiative process can serve a valuable public purpose. The main problem is lack of "transparency" in who is behind them, the reasons they are behind them, and the ignorance, laziness or whatever of the general population in learning about them and their consequences.

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority rules, simple.

 

One always has the option to move out of the state if the laws are not to their liking.

 

I spend little time in the USA because the culture, laws, privacy are no longer to my liking. My choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...